- From: Kathi Schleidt via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:10:04 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
# Discussion Items _numbered for easier reference in such a lumped issue_ **1 Observer and Host are kept more abstract (they are not Systems). Is everybody OK with this?** Not really, as they're a core part of the OMS model **2 More specific procedure types are introduced by OMS. I made the choice to reinforce the constraints on the existing properties to reflect this, but this is a breaking changes compared to the existing version. So we may prefer to keep the existing looser constraint, or create a separate sub-property with a stricter constraint (e.g. have both usedProcedure and usedObservingProcedure on Observation)** Don't understand the issue in adding a more abstract Procedure, then specializing as done in OMS. How does this break the existing version? **3 Should we also add observableProperty association between ObservingProcedure and ObservableProperty? (requested by Sylvain Grellet). If we do, then we should also add the actuableProperty association between ActuationProcedure and ActuableProperty. This makes sense to me so we can discover procedures by property.** Makes sense, in OMS you can only discover this link via the OMS:Observer. In addition, I'm all for keeping the core patterns between Observation, Actuation, Sampling aligned **4 SampleCollection could get common properties like ObservationCollection (e.g. same Sampler or same SamplingProcedure used for all samples in the collection). OMS doesn't define this, but should we do it here?** Agreed. SampleCollection was not discussed enough in OMS. Creating SamplingCharacteristics parallel to the OMS:ObservationCharacteristics to describe the nature of the SampleCollection would be valuable. In addition, I find the decision to on `No change to URIs of existing SOSA/SSN classes and properties.` a bit premature. We can state this as a goal, but must be aware that the required modifications may shift the semantics of some classes to the point where a new URI may be necessary. -- GitHub Notification of comment by KathiSchleidt Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/1402#issuecomment-1509753609 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 15 April 2023 12:10:06 UTC