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

RE: purpose/goals for observations ontologies

From: Kelsey, William D <william.d.kelsey@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 08:21:58 -0700
Message-ID: <E5BAC205209F9446A87D887C2D480DDB0B441322@XCH-NW-4V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Thank you for identifying this collection of pre-existing use cases from
separate organizations.  Are they sufficiently representative?  Have the
explicit/implicit requirements of the use cases been codified (perhaps on
the wiki as well?)?  If not, ought we to distill use case/other requirements
into a set of criteria to be met by the SSN-XG model?  How do the models
reviewed today satisfy the requirements identified in the use cases?  

Best Regards, 
W. David Kelsey 

-----Original Message-----
From: Raúl García Castro [mailto:rgarcia@fi.upm.es] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:56 AM
To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Cc: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Subject: Re: purpose/goals for observations ontologies

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:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Use_cases

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
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/

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 15:22:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 August 2009 15:22:43 GMT