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

Re: purpose/goals for observations ontologies

From: John Graybeal <graybeal@mbari.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:49:53 -0600
Cc: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D18B0328-59A8-4B3B-9730-797E49498BFB@mbari.org>
To: "Kelsey, William D" <william.d.kelsey@boeing.com>
Well, the use cases are quite extensive, but I am confident they will  
never be exhaustive. But the problem (as you suggest) will be that 100  
use cases serve no evaluative purpose, as they will include almost any  
requirement and demand every conceivable entity.

The use cases will have to be refined and prioritized (and a fair  
number excluded, is my guess) if they are to be the basis of our  
determination of what to include or not include in the model.

Unfortunately, that is "real work" that could easily take the rest of  
the year.  So it seems to me we have an impasse.

John

On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Kelsey, William D wrote:

> 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
>


John

--------------
John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 15:50:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 August 2009 15:50:46 GMT