RE: ssn ready for review

Some comments on the SSN document.
I've implemented the minor 'editorial' ones as edits to the document, and have made a pull-request.

However, there are a few I think merit a little more discussion:


1.
Section 1, par 2, "Unlike its predecessors, the SSN is designed to offer four identifiable and coherent perspectives or use cases for sensing, each of which may be used either independently or in concert with the others."
The first comment is arguably incorrect. The previous par makes reference to the OGC SWE standards as one of the predecessors, and what was quite notable in SWE was precisely that separate information models were provided for the Provider (sensor) and Consumer (data) views. This separation of viewpoints goes back to the earliest published versions, which date from 2002. I agree that they were not conceived as formal ontologies, and there are only two use-cases, but separate perspectives were established a long time back, prior to SSN.


2.
Section 2, list item 3. Why is the detail of the DUL alignment for class Sensor so high up the document? This is incommensurate with the rest of the issues in this section. Add a brief comment to item 2. that the DUL alignment has been reconsidered, and leave the detail about Sensor to section 7.


3.
The package that aligns SSN with DUL is called "the Dolce-UltraLite Alignment ontology". I suggest this might be better denoted "the Dolce UltraLite-SSN alignment graph" (or even "the DUL-SSN alignment graph" since the abbreviation DUL has already been introduced).


4.
Figure 1. - what do the rdfs:isDefinedBy arrows mean? Not mentioned in the surrounding text.

I also cleaned up the comments in sosa.ttl - there should only be one comment per resource now so docgen should work smoother. I moved examples to skos:example, notes to skos:note, and also copied down the most canonical definition from rdfs:comment to skos:definition (also left it in rdfs:comment). These annotation properties are not final of course, but the information is now segregated logically, and docgen should be better.

Simon


From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, 13 December, 2016 07:07
To: Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: ssn ready for review

Looks ready to go for me.

On 12/12/2016 10:11 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
Yes, I also think so. I will go over the entire document one more time now and should be ready in like 60-90min.

On 12/12/2016 05:06 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
To the best of my knowledge ssn is now stable and awaits your review prior to the vote to publish a fresh working draft  at the F2F.  In the last few days there
Has been work on tidying up issue-105 and the changes section (myself) , extending the section on modularity and sosa by Krzysztof, and the automated description of sosa together with relevant issue documentation by Armin.

Please have a look!
-Kerry




--

Krzysztof Janowicz



Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara

4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060



Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>

Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/<http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>

Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net




--

Krzysztof Janowicz



Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara

4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060



Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu<mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>

Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/

Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net