W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2017

Re: About MinCardinality 0 on Observation

From: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 05:07:00 +0000
To: "janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr" <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FC8A8A6F-2B1B-49C5-926F-DF683F3F34A3@anu.edu.au>
Restrictions on sosa:Observation that are defined in SSN. We do have agreed on Option 5 in our integration architecture and that entails that we use sosa:Observation in SSN.

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Reply-To: "janowicz@ucsb.edu" <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 3:21 pm
To: "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr" <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: About MinCardinality 0 on Observation
Resent-From: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, 28 March 2017 at 3:22 pm

On 03/27/2017 01:26 AM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au<mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> wrote:

Ø  Some of the local restrictions on sosa:Observation are:

Where are these axioms? Not in sosa.ttl. I guess you are referring to the changes you propose/discuss in the other mails?

We do not have such axioms in SOSA (and we should not).





Ø  1. when we will talk about sosa:resultTime, we should not forget to also talk about this property ssn:observationResultTime.

If ssn:observationResultTime is a sub-property of sosa:resultTime then anything that is said about sosa:resultTime. Then there will be the additional axioms related to sosa:resultTime only (if there are none, then we don’t need sosa:resultTime).


Ø  2. what is the proposal for ssn:observationSamplingTime in ACTION-286?

Is ssn:observationSamplingTime sub-property of sosa:phenomenonTime ?
Or is it related to sampling in the snese used in SOSA?

The old SSNX usage of ‘sampling’ was inconsistent with sosa Sampling.

Simon

From: Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr]
Sent: Monday, 27 March, 2017 18:25
To: SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org><mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Subject: About MinCardinality 0 on Observation

Dear all,

Some of the local restrictions on sosa:Observation are:

ObjectMinCardinality( 0 ssn:observationResultTime )

ObjectMinCardinality( 0 ssn:observationSamplingTime )

ObjectMinCardinality( 0 ssn:qualityOfObservation )


If I understood correctly, those min cardinality 0 are meant to document the fact that these properties "should" be attached to instances of sosa:Observation. I will not debate on this and why we do not define domains for these properties whose URIs even contain the string "observation".

Just:

1. when we will talk about sosa:resultTime, we should not forget to also talk about this property ssn:observationResultTime.

2. what is the proposal for ssn:observationSamplingTime in ACTION-286?

3. there is ssn:qualityOfObservation. How is it used? Could we also define a ssn:simpleQualityOfObservation  that is a datatype property?

Best,
Maxime




--

Krzysztof Janowicz



Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara

4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060



Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>

Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/


Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 05:07:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 28 March 2017 05:07:42 UTC