398 alignment with bfo

[dr-shorthair]

Closes #398

Preview https://raw.githack.com/w3c/sdw-sosa-ssn/398-alignment-with-bfo/ssn/index.html#BFO-alignment

[dr-shorthair]

Alignment of sosa:Procedure now consistent with the alignment of prov:Plan to CCO information content entity as given in https://github.com/BFO-Mappings/PROV-to-BFO/blob/main/prov-cco-directmappings.ttl which is the basis of Nature paper https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04580-1

I'm comfortable that this set of alignments is OK now.
@alanruttenberg might have opinions.

[dr-shorthair]

@ldesousa I checked to see if the CCO URIs dereference - I'm finding that they pull down TTL representations quite nicely
e.g. https://www.commoncoreontologies.org/ont00000958

The BFO ones go to Ontobee or OLS, except for http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000057 (has participant) which is failing.

I've reported it here BFO-ontology/BFO-2020#154

[alanruttenberg]

@dr-shorthair Did a first quick browse. I noticed Generation, Usage, and Invalidation are subclass of Instantaneous Event, which looked suspicious.
In

Influence subClassOf:
(process or 'process boundary')
 and (not (process
 and 'process boundary'))

you don't need and (not (process and 'process boundary') because those are already disjoint.

When you write something like independent continuant or specifically dependent continuant or generically dependent continuant and not spatial region it allows for things that are not BFO entities, because the complement of spatial region includes owl:Things that are not BFO entities. Is there anything that isn't a BFO entity? If not the above would be better written as bfo:entity and not occurrent and not spatial region

[dr-shorthair]

Thanks @alanruttenberg .

I think your comment relates to the PROV-BFO alignment from the Nature Scientific Data paper - Figure 2, where PROV Influence is shown. We aren't responsible for that work. I just used it to provide some perspectives, since we had already aligned SSN with PROV in the 2017 edition of SSN.

What we request now is a review of the direct alignment of SSN to BFO/CCO which can be inspected in draft tabulated here and in the RDF (Turtle) representation here

[dr-shorthair]

Please note that I have erred on the generalized side in the BFO/CCO hierarchy, and @alanruttenberg may suggest some tighter alignments for e.g. sosa:Sample.

[maximelefrancois86]

very minor changes:

in html:

• order in section 4.3 is not the same as in section 7
• the alignment of Property to Quality forces Properties to be "foi specific" (see examples). I think we should open up the alignment to BFO19 (Quality) OR BFO31 (generically dependent continuent)
• sosa:implements cannot be aligned to BFO34 (function), which is a class
• can't find any object property in the version of BFO I found. and BFO55 (realizes) and BFO57 (has participant) don't dereference
• change/define style for explanation span next to rhs ? (monospaced font not justified, as the text is not part of the concept CURIE)

[dr-shorthair]

I have suggested alignment of implements to is subject of which is a kind of generic independent continuant --> generically dependent continuant relationship.

I think this now clears all the concerns raised by @maximelefrancois86

Preview https://raw.githack.com/w3c/sdw-sosa-ssn/398-alignment-with-bfo/ssn/index.html#BFO-alignment

[dr-shorthair]

Please review this PR @maximelefrancois86 @kjano @ldesousa @oldskeptic

[dr-shorthair]

@alanruttenberg @JJBittner I would be interested in your review of https://raw.githack.com/w3c/sdw-sosa-ssn/398-alignment-with-bfo/ssn/index.html#BFO-alignment

[dr-shorthair]

@JJBittner have you been able to review this?

[dr-shorthair]

If #416 is accepted (Asset - superclass of Platform and System), the BFO alignment must be supplemented to match.

sosa:Asset ⊆ obo:BFO_0000004
# independent continuant

[dr-shorthair]

A specific question to @JJBittner and @alanruttenberg :

I adjusted the alignment of sosa:Procedure to prescriptive information content entity.
Does this make sense to you?

See https://raw.githack.com/w3c/sdw-sosa-ssn/398-alignment-with-bfo/ssn/index.html#BFO-alignment and https://github.com/w3c/sdw-sosa-ssn/blob/398-alignment-with-bfo/ssn/rdf/ontology/alignments/sosa-bfo.ttl

[TallTed]

Suggested change

	In particular it describes the actions and settings that a system must implement.
	In particular, it describes the actions and settings that a system must implement.

[TallTed]

Suggested change

	A <a>sosa:Platform</a> may be a `material entity` such as a buoy, station, satellite, etc.
	Or it may just be a location without any physical infrastructure.
	A <a>sosa:Platform</a> may be a `material entity` such as a buoy, station, satellite, etc.,
	or it may just be a location without any physical infrastructure.

[TallTed]

Suggested change

	A <a>sosa:Procedure</a> is a re-usable recipe or protocol or system datasheet, thus it is purely information
	A <a>sosa:Procedure</a> is a re-usable recipe, protocol, or system datasheet; thus, it is purely information

[TallTed]

Suggested change

	A <a>sosa:Property</a> may be generic, so that it applies to many entities.
	Or it may be specific to a particular individual.
	A <a>sosa:Property</a> may be generic, so that it applies to many entities,
	or it may be specific to a particular individual.

[alanruttenberg]

A specific question to @JJBittner and @alanruttenberg :

I adjusted the alignment of sosa:Procedure to prescriptive information content entity. Does this make sense to you?

Yes

[alanruttenberg]

@dr-shorthair

implements links an instance of a System (i.e. a Sensor or Actuator or Sampler) to the description of the Procedure (i.e. the recipe or specification) that it follows. We have mapped System to Independent Continuant and Procedure to Information Content Entity. What are the object-property options that tie an independent continuant to a generically dependent continuant?

Tagging @APCox to check this, as I haven't exercised this part of CCO.

There's the class

Performance Specification A Directive Information Content Entity that prescribes some aspect of the behavior of a participant in a Process given one or more operating conditions.

It uses the relation describes condition to relate the Performance Specification to the participant (best I can tell).

p describes_condition c iff p is an instance of a Performance Specification and c is an instance of Entity and p has part d, and d is an instance of a Descriptive Information Content Entity, and p prescribes an entity s, and d describes c, and c is an entity that is causally relevant to s existing as prescribed by p.

Which is a little hard to follow, but I think in this situation, p (is part) of the procedure, c is the system, s is the procedure executed.

If you want to go from system to procedure (the reverse direction) the inverse is the relation condition described by . So System condition described by Procedure?

[dr-shorthair]

prescribes (sibling of describes condition) and inverse prescribed by (sibling of condition described by) look more relevant to me?