W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-ssn@w3.org > August 2009

Re: purpose/goals for observations ontologies

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:55:41 +0200
Message-ID: <4A784BED.3040203@fi.upm.es>
CC: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Kelsey, William D escribió:
> I agree that, to be successful (e.g. receive larger adoption/application,
> there should be at least a minimum set of criteria used for vetting
> anticipated application (use cases?).

At the end, what supports the decision of whether to model some concrete 
information or not in the ontology, or whether to chose one ontology or 
another, are the ontology requirements; they should drive the development.

Some of these requirements can be extracted from the use cases we 
already have:

And from them we can reach some consensus on up to what extent to 
broaden or reduce the requirements for the ontology we plan to obtain by 
the end of the year.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Graybeal [mailto:graybeal@mbari.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:37 AM
> To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
> Subject: purpose/goals for observations ontologies
>  From past minutes and today's telecon, I could not tell if the group  
> had a particular goal for reviewing and including observations  
> ontologies in the discussion. (I can see everyone thought it was a  
> good idea, but not what purpose they thought this would serve.)
> Can someone clarify how we want to use any observation ontology that  
> might be identified or created?  For example, do we know we need an  
> ontology, or will it be enough just to have a list of phenomena?


Dr. Raúl García Castro

Ontology Engineering Group (http://www.oeg-upm.net/)
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:56:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:15 UTC