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

Dear all,

Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au wrote:
> 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.

+1

> 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. 

+1

Plus we need extension for energy and network structure. This is 
something you come across when working on practical cases immediately 
and it is fairly straight-forward but necessary. We extended SSN in 
SPITFIRE (www.spitfire-project.eu) in these respects and can provide 
this as a starting point for discussions.

SPITFIRE in my opinion is particularly interesting (shameless 
self-promotion) for providing input to SSN as we combine RDF, ontologies 
and REST (6LowPAN and CoAP - currently being standardized by IETF) in 
this project to make sensor networks look like normal Web resources, 
i.e., development should boil down to the same abstractions like normal 
Web development - but there is a lot of work you need to do under the 
hood to support this in a nice way.

CoAP will be the standard. The IoT people are going for REST. Ontologies 
in IoT are all over the place. We need to support this from SSN's side 
and get the necessary uptake outside the core Web community.

Best,

Manfred

> 
> 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
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Prof. Manfred Hauswirth
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG)
http://www.manfredhauswirth.org/

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 09:40:52 UTC