Re: Forecasts and observations - was I RE: SSN Thread for github issue 378 - Side effects of ssn:Observation being a kind of dul:Event instead of dul:Situation

Dear Maxime, all,

Thanks Maxime.  The text below makes small changes that I would like to 
suggest for the skos:changeNote:

'The Observation class in the initial SSN  was defined to be a cubclass 
of dul:Situation. To improve alignment with O&M and user expectations, 
as well as to follow a consistent modeling strategy for observations, 
sampling, and actuation, the new sosa:Observation class represents an 
activity.  While we do not provide any normative alignments to DUL, this 
new Observation class is more in line with dul:Event instead of 
dul:Situation.'

Best,
Jano


On 04/16/2017 07:20 AM, Maxime Lefrançois wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I am implementing this change in the ssnx.ttl document, as we also 
> decided that the alignment between the old SSN and  DUL would be kept 
> in ssnx.ttl.
>
> This is the draft of the proposed skos:changeNote:
>
> > The oldssn:Observation was a sub-class of dul:Situation. This raised 
> several problems reported in literature. Furthermore, the O&M 
> Observation class is defined as some kind of Event. Therefore, it has 
> been decided that the  new sosa:Observation would be better aligned to 
> dul:Event instead of dul:Situation. The Observation class in this 
> ontology therefore does not contain any alignment to DUL, so as to 
> help transitioning without harm.
>
> It will be part of the last pull request about the ssnx, sosa, and ssn 
> ontologies, which are now stabilized.
>
> Best,
> Maxime
>
> Le mer. 22 févr. 2017 à 01:01, Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au 
> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>> a écrit :
>
>     +1 from me too, with a skos:changeNote attached to the
>     oldssn:Observation in the ssnx alignment.
>
>     *From: *Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr
>     <mailto:maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>>
>     *Date: *Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 10:56 pm
>     *To: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
>     <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
>     *Subject: *Re: Forecasts and observations - was I RE: SSN Thread
>     for github issue 378 - Side effects of ssn:Observation being a
>     kind of dul:Event instead of dul:Situation
>     *Resent-From: *<public-sdw-wg@w3.org <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>>
>     *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 10:56 pm
>
>     +1 for what you suggest Kerry.
>
>     And I suggest we document this conceptual change in a
>     skos:changeNote attached to oldssn:Observation.
>
>     Kind regards,
>
>     Maxime
>
>     Le mar. 21 févr. 2017 à 12:33, Kerry Taylor
>     <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>> a écrit :
>
>         SSN-people,
>
>         I am trying to close off this subject as originally posed –
>         and without diverting into  the bigger issue of forecasts and
>         observations. It relates to solving issue-62 and issue-67 (how
>         does ssn:observation get re-worked as an activity/act?)
>
>         (1) Please see the conversation thread
>         here.https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2016Oct/0089.html
>
>         (2) it was rooted in Maxime’s observation that
>
>         ssn:Observation rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:onProperty
>         dul:includesEvent ; owl:someValuesFrom ssn:Stimulus ] .
>
>         and Maxime’s suggestion (among others that were discussed
>         extensively) that
>
>         Øshould this axiom be simply deleted from the SSN-DUL alignment ?
>
>         (3) I propose that we do exactly as posed here --- that is,
>         delete the axiom ssn:Observation rdfs:subClassOf [
>         owl:onProperty dul:includesEvent ; owl:someValuesFrom
>         ssn:Stimulus ]
>
>         fromhttps://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/dul-alignment.owl
>
>         (4) figure 5.9 here may help
>         understandinghttps://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/
>
>         (5) I don’t think  deleting the axiom creates a big problem as
>         the Stimulus can still be reached from the Observation via the
>         Sensor that observed it and Stimulus it detects. And if there
>         is an issue with sensors detecting multiple stimuli (which ssn
>         allows) and so we would not know which stimulus was involved
>         in the observation (which can happen), then someone using ssn
>         is going to have to work harder and define a fresh sensor for
>         each distinct stimulus if they need this.
>
>         (6) What to do with the alignment to old ssn? The change to
>         the dul alignment of Observation itself is already problematic :
>
>         ssn:Observation<http://www.w3.org/ns/ssn/Observation> becomes
>         a kind of
>         dul:Event<http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#Event>
>         instead of a dul:Situation
>
>         So… I don’t think we can align old and new ssn in an ontology
>         fragment for this. I propose that the best we can do is
>         explain the change in documentation. Any better idea?
>
>         Does anyone object to this path forward?
>
>         -Kerry
>


-- 
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