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

Re: purpose/goals for observations ontologies

From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@uni-muenster.de>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:50:00 +0200
Message-ID: <4A789EF8.6010107@uni-muenster.de>
To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Hi,

> I believe we *will* be able to agree on a common model for sensors, and
> a common model for observations and measurements. [...] Even if it's decided that an O&M
> ontology (or part thereof) is off-topic for this group (I don't think it
> should be [2]) 

I also believe that we will be able to agree on both the sensor and the
O&M ontology (or parts of it). the O&M ontology should describe
observations as sensor outputs. we probably should not go into details
of kinds of observations or phenomena but try to find a generic
conceptualization of measurement, observation, result, feature(of
interest) etc and then be able to use this in combination with external
phenomena ontologies such as SWEET. our recent sensor ontology already
has a concept called observation which we can extend in our work.

regards,
Krzysztof



> Kevin R. Page schrieb:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 08:36 -0600, John Graybeal wrote:
>   
>> 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?
>>     
>
> Is this a question of the need for an observation ontology, or for
> phenomena ontologies (or even just a list of phenomena)? We touched on
> ontologies that cover both today.
>
> I see phenomena as domain ontologies, and therefore something to steer
> clear of. We're unlikely to be able to achieve coverage or depth
> sufficient for any one class of domain experts/users, and unlikely to be
> able to agree on the structure and content (if we're even qualified to
> do so). I think it's also healthy to be able to support multiple
> ontologies from each domain (for the same reasons as above, within each
> domain); a little mapping can go a long way, and I'm very wary of "one
> ontology to rule them all" [1]
>
> I believe we *will* be able to agree on a common model for sensors, and
> a common model for observations and measurements. It's clear that these
> will often need to be used in conjunction with each other, and in
> conjunction with domain ontologies.
>
> I don't think it's yet clear whether these models should be encapsulated
> in one ontology, or two separate but closely linked ontologies.
>
> We should recognise that both user-oriented (data) and process-oriented
> (sensor) use cases exist (as reflected in current OGC standards).
>
> Most of the sensor ontology review was process-oriented (imho! Some
> included O&M concepts, but this generally wasn't the focus).
>
> Personally, I was hoping to cover a more user-oriented perspective in
> our review today, which I think we did. Even if it's decided that an O&M
> ontology (or part thereof) is off-topic for this group (I don't think it
> should be [2]), I think it's very important for the sensor ontology or a
> part of it to be extendable - or at the very least compatible - with
> user-centric use cases [3].
>
>
>
> [1] I think we saw a little of this today when SWEET was discussed...
> though time is probably a bit of a special case to pick on, because it's
> both a fundamental quantity (fine to map between) and has domain
> specific representations such as eras.
>
> [2] though Simon mentioned an upcoming SONet meeting/process to reach a
> common O&M model, which is something to take into consideration.
>
> [3] So you won't be surprised to hear I think the Linked Data aspect of
> the Semantic Web is just as important as the reasoning aspect.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> kev
>
>   


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz
Institut für Geoinformatik
Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster
Weseler Straße 253
D-48151 Münster
fon: 0049 - 251 - 83 39764
fax: 0049 - 251 - 83 39763
janowicz@uni-muenster.de
http://ifgi.uni-muenster.de/~janowicz 

'Die Wahrheit ist das Kind der Zeit, nicht der Autorität' 
(Bertolt Brecht)
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:50:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 August 2009 20:50:38 GMT