Alignment of terminology with other observation models

[dr-shorthair]

Annex B is "Mapping O&M terminology to common usage"
Additional mappings should be added, e.g. DDI
(probably:
ddi:Unit == feature of interest,
ddi:Universe == ultimate feature of interest,
ddi:Variable =~ observed property
)

[KathiSchleidt]

I'm starting to wonder if we might even need this type of mapping within our current discussions

I've now put up a google sheet with the alignment (as far as I can divine it) between O&M 2.0, SOSA, and our first stab at O&M 3.0: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RbZtW8rDRk7n7oDoNH0SONPm1uZ29dkAPByXwddOvOY/edit?usp=sharing
(the link gives you comment rights, if you want more, please request!)

[dr-shorthair]

Looking at https://github.com/opengeospatial/om-swg/blob/master/iso_19156_issues/om_core_uml_draft.png I am concerned that the rolenames relating to the feature or interest and sampling do not match either O&M v2 (i.e. ISO 19156:2011) or SSN/SOSA. I can infer that domainFeature and samplingInfo are supposed to satisfy the same requirements as hasFeatureOfInterest and hasUltimateFeatureOfInterest from SSN and SSN-ext but I find the proposed terminology less explicit.