- From: Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:17:42 +0000
- To: "Le Phuoc, Danh" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, "Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, "Kerry Taylor" <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>, Maxime Lefrançois <maxime.lefrancois@emse.fr>
Thanks Danh for your detailed analysis of the Observation Value issue! I have added Option Numbers to the Wiki, to make it easier to refer to them.
I encourage everyone to look at the current proposals. As far as I can tell from previous discussions on the list several group members prefer Option 3, collapsing the property path in SOSA (and also in SSN) and not offering a hasValue relation. This also aligns to the decisions made in our best practices document. It also follows the Pareto principle.
I will watch the ensuing discussion and if there is a compromise emerging on the list, I will also try to put this issue for vote in our next meeting.
On 10/2/17, 2:07 am, "Le Phuoc, Danh" <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de> wrote:
Hi all,
As requested from Armin to outline a solution for attach values to observations as a part of the solution mentioned in this issue: https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/issues/90, I created a Wiki page at https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Storing_Observation_Value with some figures to illustrate the possible patterns : collapsing or not collapsing ssn:SensorOutput and ssn:ObservationValue.
I’m trying to collecting inputs/proposals from previous minutes to populate the wiki page but I got lost. I would appreciate if you could point me to your proposals in the minutes or even better put them directly to the Wiki so that I could consolidate them before the next call.
Best,
Danh
Received on Friday, 10 February 2017 00:18:23 UTC