-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 812
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update /Observation in light of pending experience including datacommons.org #2564
Comments
Why does 'marginOfError' have expected type 'DateTime'. The marginOfError should have a numeric value with some specification of the statistic used to estimate the margin of error, thus itself is actually an observation result. |
Seems like it would be good to align the schema.org observation with the w3c SOSA observation "Observation - Act of carrying out an (Observation) Procedure to estimate or calculate a value of a property of a FeatureOfInterest. Links to a Sensor to describe what made the Observation and how; links to an ObservableProperty to describe what the result is an estimate of, and to a FeatureOfInterest to detail what that property was associated with.' Looks like observedNode would map to FeatureOfInterest. |
Having seen first-hand the work that the NYT folks need to do to get at such data, I believe that this could prove very useful and is worth shipping early even if it may be imperfect at first. |
A proposed mapping between Schema.org and SOSA was prepared a couple of years ago - see https://github.com/w3c/sdw/blob/gh-pages/ssn/rdf/sosa-sdo-mapping.ttl A few details:
Note that the tension between
was the topic of much discussion in the W3C project that generated the SOSA vocabulary before we came down on the side of it being an Action, partly through analogy with PROV and BFO.
(1) the time in the world that the result describes (which is usually what an analyst is interested in) In general these are not the same. At the very least there is likely to be a data-processing and communications lag which will put the result-time later than the phenomenon-time. While this may or may not be important, having both slots explicit makes the structure also useful
I suspect that observationDate is intended to be the phenomenon-time, but this should at least be clear from the documentation.
|
schema.org Action does seem like a better parent class for observation: it accounts for
I agree that measuredProperty and variableMeasured are redundant. Keep variableMeasured since its already there. Location-- Have to clarify the location of the feature of interest from the location of the observer, e.g. where was the satellite as opposed to what was the satellite imaging, or where the sample was collected in the field from the location of the lab where it was analyzed. reiterating issues Simon brought up:
|
I second the suggestions from @smrgeoinfo and @dr-shorthair. Particularly important is the change to make Observation a child of Action rather than Intangible. |
Several people have suggested that we put Schema.org/Observation below /Action. I can see how this makes sense, in that observing is a kind of action. However I am wary of doing so, in that the Schema.org Actions design has its own complications (including an associated protocol) and after some years only a patchy implementation story. I am wary of complicating the picture further by mixing this work in there. Similarly, there is a case that actions are events; and yet we have chosen not to entangle those pieces of the design either, for now at least. |
On the detailed matter that you bring up @danbri, every There is already quite a rich set of sub-classes of |
This issue is being tagged as Stale due to inactivity. |
Looking at W3C/OGC sosa::Observation I had proposed the following alignment to the Schema.org/CreateAction, on the principle that an Observation is an action that creates information. (The other 'actions' in SOSA/SSN are
Schema.org/Observation type is not tied to the (Modified 2022-08-31 - added |
I don't see the hook for |
@smrgeoinfo @ashepherd @mbjones @fils @njarboe this is possibly relevant to ESIPFed/science-on-schema.org#211 |
@pbuttigieg I wonder if you had seen this thread - attempting to bridge schema.org with sensor/observation models from W3C & OGC. Possibly relevant to your Ocean InfoHub work? |
@danbri : in #2564 (comment) you mentioned
I can't find any trace of the 'associated protocol'. Could you point us to that? All the contributors to this issue appear to be in agreement. I'll prepare a PR if that would help move things forward. |
Maybe “protocol” was not best name, but see
https://schema.org/docs/actions.html
Similarly we didn’t entangle Action and Event
…On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 07:48, Simon Cox ***@***.***> wrote:
@danbri <https://github.com/danbri> : in #2564 (comment)
<#2564 (comment)>
you mentioned
the Schema.org Actions design has its own complications (including an
associated protocol)
I can't find any trace of the 'associated protocol'. Could you point us to
that?
AFAICT this would be only blocked to making the proposed change - i.e. to
move Observation to be a subclass of Action rather than Intangible.
All the contributors to this issue appear to be in agreement. I'll prepare
a PR if that would help move things forward.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2564 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABJSGPP56H35J7RLDU4BQDV3WVDLANCNFSM4M7BJDSA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Clarifier: what is the relationship between
?? |
Would it help if I generated some additional examples that could be added to this page, showing
They are potentially related. However, the suggested properties of I had proposed that |
Example of a single observation showing all observation metadata fields and result:
I could add this to the Wiki documentation as an additional example (i.e. fork and make a PR). |
Here's the matching SSN/SOSA
|
Meta-question on schema.org and JSON-LD - I just pasted the example to the JSON-LD Playground after I fixed the link in the context (https://schema.org resolves to the main landing page, https://schema.org/docs/jsonldcontext.json seems to be the file to include in the context), but keep getting errors. Would be nice to see the LD in action Any ideas why this doesn't work? |
I cloned-and-modified from https://schema.org/docs/actions.html |
hmmm, when I paste dr-shorthair's JSON-LD with no changes, it seems to work fine in the playground . |
People can be confused because opening "https://schema.org/" in a browser returns a web page, and not a JSON-LD Context. The key is that a JSON-LD processor will make the request with |
I'd assumed that conneg would sort the bit of getting the context JSON vs. the HTML page. My issue is that when I paste Simon's example to the JSON-LD Playground, I get an error |
I've just posted an update to this vocabulary in schema.org version 16 There's a Google doc with some more notes on the approach taken, which essentially follows the evolution of the datacommons.org vocabulary which we adopted previously. I've gone into a bit more detail there on some of the topics discussed in this thread. |
Not sure if this is the right place, but I have a query about how I guess the question is - does it need clarifying whether |
Data Commons have been using /Observation heavily, and @darobin has also been looking into using it (see https://gist.github.com/darobin/07324754f0db7f090d737b9d2616536c). The /Observation type is in "Pending" status currently which means we are looking for feedback. This issue is to make some updates based on implementor experience.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: