Re: ISSUE-94: Why do we need the sosa-core Feature of interest class at all?

Hi,

If I recall correctly, we closed the issue in the telco next week and 
decided to keep the FeatureOfInterest class for many reasons. Among them 
are:

* The featureOfInterest property requires an actual observation for a 
feature to become an FOI. Hence, it is not possible to mark *future* 
FOI, which is a very useful feature. E.g., if one would like to talk 
about a new oils spill and how to sample and study it.

* The same argument holds for other FOI that do not contain related 
observations in the KB for many potential reasons, e.g., because they 
are unknown.

* A FOI class makes it easy to use faceted browsing interfaces.

* A FOI class is easy to subtype and use in SPARQL queries, while this 
is more complicated for the average user without an explicit class.

* Having a FOI class makes it easier to prevent that everything can act 
as filler of the featureOfInterest property (as we do not use domain and 
range). The class also serves as filler of our informal rangeIncludes 
property.

* ...

Best,
Jano


On 12/04/2016 02:58 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Hi Kerry –
>
> Again, I agree with the analysis. In om-lite I dispensed with any 
> specific class here and just made the om:featureOfInterest property an 
> owl:ObjectProperty, so the implied range is rdfs:Resource I think.
>
> I guess the issue in the context of SOSA is whether an explicit class 
> sosa:FeatureOfInterest (or sosa:Feature) is helpful or confusing to 
> the target audience, and conversely whether providing no specific 
> class is a failure to provide necessary guidance to users?
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*Kerry Taylor [mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 30 November, 2016 00:19
> *To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: [sdw] ssn meeting this week
>
> As requested (bit too late –sorry) I have  split issue-86 into two 
> parts. The first part is about annotations and led to item 3 on this 
> agenda here and remains as  issue-86; the second part is the issue 
> addressed in item 4 here and is has moved out of issue-86 to become 
> now issue-94
>
> *From:*Armin Haller [mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au]
> *Sent:* Monday, 28 November 2016 10:21 PM
> *To:* public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [sdw] ssn meetiArmin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>>ng this week
>
>
>   Agenda for SSN-focused meeting 29 November 2016 21:00 UTC
>   <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20161129T21&ah=1&msg=SSN%20Call>
>
>  1. Assigning tasks on the writing of the WD
>     http://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn/ for December 16th deadline
>  2. Decision on removing someValues from restriction on hasSubSystem
>     ISSUE 85 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/85>
>  3. Annotations in mapping table
>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Mapping_Table
>  4. Remove featureOfInterest Class? i.e., second part of Issue ISSUE
>     86 <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/86> and
>     observableProperty?, i.e. second part of ISSUE 87
>     <https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/87>
>
> Further details and dial in instructions: 
> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Meetings:SSN-Telecon20161129
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Armin
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net