- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:49:42 -0800
- To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> However, if the paragraph has been misunderstood by one person (me), > it could be by others. I would suggest to rewrite that part along the > lines stated in your explanation. You are absolutely right. I have written this a bit in a hurry and will polish the text more. Thanks again for your feedback. Best, Krzysztof On 12/13/2016 10:45 PM, Raúl García Castro wrote: > El 13/12/16 a las 22:27, Krzysztof Janowicz escribió: >>> I don't agree with this statement in section 5.1: "SOSA defines those >>> classes and properties for which data that can be safely exchanged >>> across all uses of the SSN". If SOSA does not cover the whole SSN >>> ontology, it cannot ensure interoperability at that level. >> >> Thanks for your comments Raul. You are reading the sentence the other >> way around. What it is intended to state is that services that offer >> data based on SOSA alone and those that offer data based on the full SSN >> can exchange data on the level of SOSA, i.e., they can inter-operate on >> issues that involve observations and their results and so forth but not >> on the level of specific sensor capabilities or networks of sensors as >> those are defined in SSN but not SOSA. In fact, such core >> ontologies/patterns play a great role in acting as a minimal >> interoperability fallback level for multiple ontologies in that the >> involved parties merely need to agree on common patterns (and >> reoccurrence is the very nature of patterns) instead of entire >> ontologies. > > Thanks for the clarification. Now I get it. > > However, if the paragraph has been misunderstood by one person (me), > it could be by others. I would suggest to rewrite that part along the > lines stated in your explanation. > > Kind regards, > >> On 12/13/2016 01:08 PM, Raúl García Castro wrote: >>> El 12/12/16 a las 14:06, Kerry Taylor escribió: >>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Here you have some comments on the current SSN Editor's Draft. >>> >>> The two paragraphs before figure 1 seem to be a bit out of scope for >>> the specification and may be a bit confusing for the intended audience >>> of the document. The discussion about decidability for modules seems >>> too much when we are just using owl:import, and some statements are >>> not quite understandable (e.g., "concepts in the ontology module that >>> inherit object properties", what is a "concept" in OWL and how can it >>> inherit a property?). >>> >>> Besides, now we just have vertical segmentation. Why not removing that >>> header since we are mainly owl:import-ing modules? >>> >>> In figure 1, some of the owl:imports relationships that appear in the >>> figure are redundant and add confusion to the figure. If SSN-O&M >>> imports SSN and SSN already imports SOSA, there is no need for SSN-O&M >>> to import SOSA. If DUL-A imports SSN-O&M and SSN-O&M already imports >>> SSN, there is no need for DUL-A to import SSN. Without the redundant >>> relationships, we have a simple layered view on the modules. >>> >>> The document in its current state really needs figures. I volunteer to >>> provide some figures of the different ontology modules similar to the >>> ones I made for the old SSN. >>> >>> Section 4 (The SSN ontology) is not stated to be normative or not; I >>> suppose that it is normative. Then, it is very strange that the >>> standard ontology imports another non-normative ontology. Either SOSA >>> is normative or we have to reconsider the relationship between both. >>> >>> Besides, if SOSA is the core module of the ontology, it should be >>> presented first. >>> >>> I don't agree with this statement in section 5.1: "SOSA defines those >>> classes and properties for which data that can be safely exchanged >>> across all uses of the SSN". If SOSA does not cover the whole SSN >>> ontology, it cannot ensure interoperability at that level. >>> >>> The SSN-O&M Alignment module is not explained in the document. We >>> would need at least a placeholder for it wouldn't we? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >> >> > > -- 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
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 06:50:16 UTC