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 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> 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>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 21 February 2017 at 10:56 pm
> *To: *Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>, "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <
> 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>
> *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> 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
>
>
>
> Ø  should 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 ]
>
> from
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/ssn_separated/dul-alignment.owl
>
>
>
> (4) figure 5.9 here may help understanding
> https://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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>