- From: <Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:24:51 +1000
- To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Simon, I've done a pass on O&M 2.0 and updated http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/SWE_terms accordingly. I still need a definition for Event, ValueThing, Parameter (tricky: it can be used in multiple places) and for quality of observation (also tricky to define). Also we need to clarify observationSamplingTime vs. phenomenaTime. L. -----Original Message----- From: Simon Cox [mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu] Sent: Wednesday, 14 July 2010 2:08 AM To: Lefort, Laurent (ICT Centre, Acton); public-xg-ssn@w3.org Subject: RE: Missing definitions Laurent - as noted previously, there are textual definitions available for all the elements of O&M available in ISO/DIS 19156. Some of these are in the list of definitions in clause 4, and the rest can be clipped from the normative text in clauses 6-10. This standard is now published by ISO (publication date June 4th), and therefore formally citeable. Simon >-- Original Message -- >From: <Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au> >To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org> >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:30:51 +1000 >Subject: Missing definitions > > >Hi, > >One of the common weaknesses of all the sensor ontologies we reviewed at >the beginning of the XG was the lack of textual definitions. > >For our ontology, it is now easier to identify the missing definitions because >they will appear as in the documentation page generated out of the OWL file > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Documentation_Draft (work in progress) > > >It is easier to use than the OWL file for this purpose because I'm using >some extra rdfs:seeAlso annotations to separate the different sub-parts. >The process is not quite fully automated but it is not too painful. > >Can you please have a look at the list below and send your suggestions for >the definitions which are still missing (either single definitions or terminology >resources covering what's missing). > >Cheers >Laurent
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 02:25:29 UTC