Re: [Asdf] Location information with SDF

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

Thank you! Would be great to understand better the intention here and what kind of information we need to express. Probably that’s easiest to figure out face-to-face while we’re at the IETF meeting. I’d suggest we meet in front of Palmovka 1/2 (M floor, close to Café Bistro) at 11:00 tomorrow (Wed) for a quick chat. Anyone else interested on the topic, feel free to join. If this time doesn’t work for you, let’s discuss off-list to find another time slot and announce it here.


Cheers,
Ari


From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 7. November 2023 at 18.13
To: Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Asdf] Location information with SDF
Hi all,

The diagram below reflects yesterday's comment from David.
Ari and David, thank you all.

Best regards,
Hyunjeong Lee

From: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 1:50 AM
To: 'Ari Keränen' <ari.keranen=[e-mail]>; '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [Asdf] Location information with SDF

Hi all,
Thank you for your support.
Please find the answer inline below.

Best regards,
Hyunjeong Lee

From: ASDF <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Ari Keranen
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 10:41 PM
To: 이현정 <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [Asdf] Location information with SDF

Hi,

Regarding the discussion yesterday at the ASDF meeting about expressing location information with SDF for the Digital Twin use cases, here is a draft note of couple of different options on how the information could be expressed using sdfProperty, sdfObject, and sdfRelation constructs:
https://notes.ietf.org/pPdkmO6nRRKEx7-IDRHhNw

The note contains three different options for structuring the postal address information shown in the example on slide 8 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-118-asdf-draft-lee-asdf-digital-twin-00). Each option has different merits, but probably the first or second one makes most sense here.

>> I wanted to express my gratitude for the example you shared with me. Your ideas resonated with me and greatly assisted me in organizing my thoughts.
>> Thank you once again for your support and valuable input.

Would be good to test if this approach works for the more complex cases too and what kind of ontology terms are needed to make this work well with the DT use case.

>> I appreciate your ideas, and while I agree with your perspective, my intent is slightly different.
>> Therefore, I have made some adjustments to the diagram and am sending it along with the example.
>> In the revised version, we consider “location information(sdfLocation)” is mandatory within the "sdfThing", while we treat “location information (sdfLocation)” for "sdfObject" as optional (See the following diagram).

[cid:image001.png@01DA11E8.D3AE6EC0]

Cheers,
Ari