W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-ig@w3.org > July 2017

RE: Mappings between SSN & WoT TD

From: Charpenay, Victor <victor.charpenay@siemens.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2017 07:58:31 +0000
To: Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>, "MEDINI LIONEL" <lionel.medini@univ-lyon1.fr>
CC: "Le Phuoc, Danh" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6E3FA85ED8C35E42B0F7DE1E44FD0C9F05436F17@DENBGAT9EL5MSX.ww902.siemens.net>
Hi Maxime,

one word about namespaces:

- we are about to move the WoT ontology from http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot# to https://www.w3.org/ns/td/. Some of the issues you raised were also discussed in the TD calls. You can find the latest version in this repository: https://github.com/w3c/wot-thing-description/.

- the namespaces I took for SAREF is that of the ETSI standard, which is a superset of the original version from TNO. It provides additional alignment with oneM2M. See http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/103200_103299/103264/01.01.01_60/ts_103264v010101p.pdf. As the group actively collaborates with oneM2M, I assumed the ETSI namespace was preferable.


From: Maxime Lefrançois [mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr]
Sent: Freitag, 7. Juli 2017 19:34
Cc: Le Phuoc, Danh; Public Web of Things IG
Subject: Re: Mappings between SSN & WoT TD

Dear all,

Following Lionel Medini's request to provide an initial alignment between the SOSA/SSN and the WoT ontology (see mail below),

Considering the TD JSON-LD context are at
 - http://w3c.github.io/wot/w3c-wot-td-context.jsonld

 - http://w3c.github.io/wot/w3c-wot-common-context.jsonld

and considering that these contexts refer to the ontologies at
  "td": "http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot#<http://iot.linkeddata.es/def/wot>", and
"saref": "http://uri.etsi.org/m2m/saref#<http://uri.etsi.org/m2m/saref>", (shouldn't it be https://w3id.org/saref#<https://w3id.org/saref> ?)

I would rather open the discussion to Raul, Maria and Victor. My initial guess for an alignment between the SOSA/SSN ontology and the VICINITY wot ontology would be:

wot:Thing rdfs:subClassOf ssn:System .
wot:providesInteractionPattern rdfs:subPropertyOf ssn:implements .
wot:InteractionPattern rdfs;subClassOf sosa:Procedure .
wot:hasInputData rdfs:subPropertyOf ssn:hasInput
wot:hasOutputData rdfs:subPropertyOf ssn:hasOutput

@authors of the wot ontology, some preliminary comments:
- I just noticed what may be typos in the definition of wot:MediaType: estructured --> structured, os --> of , Definicion --> Definition
- typo in the label of wot:isReadableThrough
- I would suggest to rename wot:Property to wot:PropertyInteractionPattern to avoid confusion with ssn:Property
- same for wot:Event and wot:Action ?
- do you really want to impose the use of OM for units of measures ? or could we use QUDT instead ?
- instead of wot:DataSchema, couldn't we use the class rdfp:GraphPresentation from the RDFP ( https://w3id.org/rdfp/ ) ontology to generalize a bit to any RDF Graph that has some validation rules / lifting rules / lowering rules ? That could help to cover cases where input data or output data do not solely consist in a quantity value  (ex. some text, concepts, or force and torque values)
- could we have wot: properties that map to the CoRE resource directory rt (resource type) and if (interface) Web Link target attributes ? see RFC6690
- instead of a property with a boolean range, I've heard it's good practice to use classes instead --> disjoint classes RequiredProperty and OptionalProperty ?

Some other suggestions come to my mind, but that should be a good starting point to develop discuss further the development of that nice wot ontology and it's alignment to SSN.

@Lionel, some more comments inline

Maxime Lefrançois

 Le ven. 7 juil. 2017 à 16:41, MEDINI LIONEL <lionel.medini@univ-lyon1.fr<mailto:lionel.medini@univ-lyon1.fr>> a écrit :
Hi Maxime,

As I understand, Danh won’t have time to answer this email, so I rely on you.

Currently, I have mapped sosa:Platform as subclass of wot:Thing.

Because I would like to align ssn:implements with wot:providesInteractionPattern, then I suggested to align ssn:System to wot:Thing instead.

In order to show requests that are able to do more complex things than retrieving instances of WoT Thing, I will need more mappings between the 2 ontologies. For instance, it would be good if we could retrieve all things in a given area (deployment ?),

Deployment should not be considered here, you can add lat/long coordinates to anything provided that it is physical --> sosa:Platform, sosa:Sensor, sosa:Actuator, sosa:Sampling, ssn:System... (not sure about ssn:Deployment because it's aligned to dul:Event....)

or a list of available temperature sensors by querying TD classes and properties.

Do you have / could you provide me with a turtle file stating such mappings?

Thanks in advance for your help,


Lionel Médini - associate professor
LIRIS Lab / University of Lyon
Phone: +33 4 72 43 16 36<tel:04%2072%2043%2016%2036>
Fax: +33 4 72 43 15 36<tel:04%2072%2043%2015%2036>

Received on Sunday, 9 July 2017 07:59:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:27:12 UTC