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

sosa-core:feature of interest

Why do we need the sosa-core Feature of interest class at all?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Semantic Sensor Network Ontology

Raised by:

Kerry Taylor

Opened on:

2016-11-29

Description:

--forked from issue-86 (see extended backgound there) --

As "feature" is a clearly a difficult term in OGC-land, and is meaningless outside that --- should we consider a total rename ---e.g. "Object",
or "Entity" or maybe even union of (dul:Event and dul:Object)?

Or drop it altogether --- why do we even need it? Sure it needs to be identitifed, but why not just as the filler for the featureofInterest property and so no named class is required at all? Any minimal core would need to describe what is being looked at -- but the object property is enough, surely?

And if we don't need it in the core -- we don't need it in the main ssn either ---- remove it from there too?

Note that much the same idea for sosa-core:observableproperty is recorded as issue-87

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: ISSUE-87: why is sosa-core:observable property renamed (from janowicz@ucsb.edu on 2016-12-04)
2. Re: ISSUE-94: Why do we need the sosa-core Feature of interest class at all? (from janowicz@ucsb.edu on 2016-12-04)
3. ISSUE-86: Annotation for a feature of interest (etc) (from Simon.Cox@csiro.au on 2016-12-04)
4. ISSUE-87: why is sosa-core:observable property renamed (from Simon.Cox@csiro.au on 2016-12-04)
5. ISSUE-94: Why do we need the sosa-core Feature of interest class at all? (from Simon.Cox@csiro.au on 2016-12-04)
6. RE: [sdw] ssn meeting this week (from kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au on 2016-11-29)

Related notes:

Display change log