RE: [ExternalEmail] Proposal for a new organisation of the SSN Ontology

Michael and all,
I strongly support this redesign, at least in principle (as Michael knows!).  I haven't had a chance to look at the detail, yet, I am afraid.

A point of minor disagreement, though. I think your message implies that (roughly) the SSN is "complete" and
everything else is covered by "stubs" and "examples". 
I think there is real extension work to be done (appropriately modularised), perhaps around "activation",
"humans as sensors" and possibly systems, platforms and deployment too. 

Kerry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Compton [mailto:Michael.Compton@csiro.au]
> Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 5:07 PM
> To: public-ssn-cg@w3.org
> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Proposal for a new organisation of the SSN
> Ontology
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It's pretty quiet on this list so far, so here is a try at generating
> some discussion.
> 
> I've been thinking about the SSN Ontology and wondering if it wouldn't
> be better organised into a set of ontologies, rather than just one.  A
> couple of reasons:
> 
> - the SSO (stimulus sensor observation) pattern isn't usable on its own
> 
> - the SSN ontology introduces things like deployments, which aren't
> sensor only, and
> 
> - I keep getting asked about the dolce alignment and how it's all very
> nice and all, but it seems like lots of users would rather maybe know
> it's there, but not have to use it
> 
> 
> So attached I have a first cut at doing this.
> 
> - It starts with the SSO as an independent ontology.
> 
> - Then importing this is the SSNO, which should amount to all the
> 'sensor only' concepts.
> 
> - From there is SSNO plus the alignment as a separate branch and
> another branch which adds Systems and Devices and then Platforms and
> Deployments.
> 
> - Finally, is the whole thing aligned to DUL.  This should be pretty
> much equivalent to the original ontology.
> 
> 
> I hope that's able to be navigated with the attached files.   My
> expectation is that the sensor ontology could be just the first two
> (SSO & SSNO) and then from there as a community we could define a
> number of useful stubs and examples - so take the systems and
> deployments branch as a stub of how to incorporate systems, devices
> and deployments.  For example, units, time, location, etc might also
> be useful stubs.  These together with a set of examples and libraries
> (say of definitions of real devices and domains) could really help to
> get people started with the ontology and help us share common fragments.
> 
> All this should give us a somewhat more minimal ontology and a better
> organisation of extensions etc.
> 
> Thoughts, ideas, comments, disagreements, etc..?
> 
> Michael
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 04:31:26 UTC