Open dr-shorthair opened 2 years ago
In particular, there is no explicit relationship between the SiteVisit and Site classes.
The mandatory relationship was removed to support opportunistic surveys. Instead of the ultimate feature of interest being an established survey site for samplings and observations, the ultimate feature of interest is now the next closest spatial region, e.g. a national park, state or territory.
Perhaps site visits should always exist and their relationship may not necessarily point to a Site
but can also point to some other FeatureOfInterest
like a national park. There is still an inherent "site visit" to some spatial region. What do you think?
I note that you have taken some shortcuts with locationDescriptiopn and siteDescription duplicated on both Site and SiteVisit.
Probably this information is more strictly associated with only the Site, which might be described and located once, and then re-visited more than once.
Time-varying descriptive information is strictly the result of Observations made as part of a SiteVisit.
I think siteDescription
and locationDescription
should be factored out into observable properties. Plus they are really only applicable to the AusPlots Rangelands collection protocol.
These two properties snuck in from a few years ago when we were still figuring out how to model things.
can also point to some other FeatureOfInterest like a national park. There is still an inherent "site visit" to some spatial region. What do you think?
Yes - that would work. Else you just accept that the national park also becomes a tern:Site
by virtue of being the object of the tern:visitedSite
property. That is simple RDFS entailment, and does no harm.
What I was hoping to find was SiteVisit
as a basic type that allows for a set of observations and samplings (and perhaps even treatments...) to be collected together as part of a coordinated activity. That is how they are undertaken in practice, but it looked like it was downgraded in the overall ontology.
In order to accomplish this, you would also need to add some guidance about the associations between these different activities.
PROV-O has only prov:wasInformedBy
and prov:qualifiedCommunication
, neither of which really works.
In the Project Ontology (which is another PROV application) I added https://linked.data.gov.au/def/project#wasSubActivityOf and its inverse https://linked.data.gov.au/def/project#hadSubActivity though perhaps dcterms:isPartOf
/dcterms:hasPart
would do.
The 'site-visit' appears to be an important element of the practice of ecology observations and sampling. However, it looks like it is a bit underdone in the TERN Ontology. In particular, there is no explicit relationship between the
SiteVisit
andSite
classes.So in a SOSA/TERN Ontology aligned to the PROV model, a
Site
is a kind ofprov:Entity
, and aSiteVisit
is a kind ofprov:Activity
.A
SiteVisit
occurs at aSite
, and groups a set ofObservations
andSamplings
. All of these are kinds ofprov:Activity
so there is a 'sub-activity' relationship between them - maybedcterms:isPartOf
or maybe something more specialized.The generic relationships between an
Activity
and anEntity
areprov:used
andprov:wasUsedBy
. So thehasFeatureOfInterest
property from anObservation
orSampling
could be a sub-property ofprov:used
. This could also be used to link aSiteVisit
to itsSite
.I note that you have taken some shortcuts with
locationDescriptiopn
andsiteDescription
duplicated on bothSite
andSiteVisit
. Probably this information is more strictly associated with only theSite
, which might be described and located once, and then re-visited more than once. Time-varying descriptive information is strictly the result ofObservations
made as part of aSiteVisit
.I realize that this is a stricter model than you have used until now.