Re: [sdw] OMS Alignment (#1402)

**Point 1**

To our view, Sensor is a subtype of Observer (this was based on long discussions we'd have over the years convincing people that O&M or SOSA can be used without a Sensor. The term Observer is more neutral)

Why can't we slip the Observer concept between Sensor and System in the derivation hierarchy?

I fail to see how Platform is a System in the current model, only associated to System


`If you look at my changes to the ontology,... `

Where are these documented? 



**Point 2**

without access to your modified version of SOSA, it's difficult to judge if the inclusion of the specialized procedures would actually break existing applications.

While I can see some reasoning issues ensuing, as the specialized procedures are all subtypes of Procedure, this should be alignable, I don't see the blocking point.



**Points 3&4**

As O&M and SOSA have always been leapfrogging each other as they progress, I believe we should definitely investigate the proposed refinements that came up at the end of the OMS work

Both the link between ObservingProcedure and ObservedProperty as well as the enriched SampleCollection would be most valuable. 
If we have them in SOSA, it would be far easier to cleanly add to various domain models.


**Point 5**

While I appreciate aiming for backwards compatibility, even ontologies can evolve to new versions. 
I'm not sure if we're doing the community a service by making total backwards compatibility our highest goal

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by KathiSchleidt
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/1402#issuecomment-1511069228 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Monday, 17 April 2023 10:11:41 UTC