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

Re: ISSUE-3 (Modules for sensor, data and process): Ontology modules aligned with use cases [sensor ontology - http://mmisw.org/orr/#http://www.w3.org/2009/SSN-XG/Ontologies/SensorBasis.owl - 09.12.15 ]

From: Manfred Hauswirth <manfred.hauswirth@deri.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:11:32 +0000
Message-ID: <4B3119E4.7000205@deri.org>
To: Michael Compton <Michael.Compton@csiro.au>
CC: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group WG <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
+1

Michael Compton wrote:
> A couple of points about this one
> 
> - I think showing how the ontology relates to the use cases is an 
> important idea.  Doing so would certainly portray both the ontology 
> and the use cases in a way that would make them both accessible and 
> understandable relative to each other.
> 
> - Actually structuring the ontology around these use cases does seem 
> unusual.  A modular structure is good idea, but it should more 
> represent the natural boundaries and groupings of the ideas.
> 
> - A view or representation of the ontology, while conforming to it's 
> logical meaning, doesn't have to represent it's modular structure or 
> all it's parts.  For example if the ontology is split into modules A, 
> B and C, but a particular use case required B, parts of A and only a 
> little of C, then it would seem natural to me to highlight those 
> aspects in the presentation of the ontology for that use case, perhaps 
> presenting the concepts in a way suitably showing those parts together 
> and not highlighting the 'real' modularisation of the ontology.  So 
> why not produce such views (i.e. just as diagrams) suitable for 
> explaining particular points and use cases, and if it's natural and 
> correct why not think about it in terms of that representation when 
> think about the use case?
> 
> - I think I think this because I always see an ontology and its 
> representation as distinct things - though many seem to disagree, so 
> here's my explanation.  Like any data structure or model an ontology 
> does not have to be exposed in it's entirity, or at all, to 'users'.  
> Just as in programming where we build data structures internally, to 
> say objects, and then expose interfaces to them, here we can build the 
> ontology as a model, but expose or represent it in any way that 
> respects its meaning but is more appropriate to the task at hand.  For 
> example we have already discovered in the group that there is a 
> division between caring mostly about data (observations) and mostly 
> about sensors.  These groups have different requirements of and 
> different focusses on the ontology.  So it would seem natural then to 
> present to say an observation focused user a view of the ontology that 
> highlights and looks like their view of the world, rather than 
> presenting the ontology in its whole, which may not at all look like 
> or feel like their view of the world.  Here I mean present in either 
> an interface for using the ontology, or document explaining it etc.
> 
> So I think that we should structure the ontology in the most natural 
> way, but, in the sense in those last two points, I think Laurent's 
> suggestion has some merit in both explaining and potentially 
> validating the ontology for the particular uses that we have identified.
> 
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 17/12/2009, at 18:57 , Simon Cox wrote:
> 
>  > +1
>  >
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org
>  > ] On
>  > Behalf Of John Graybeal
>  > Sent: 17 December 2009 07:33
>  > To: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group WG
>  > Subject: Re: ISSUE-3 (Modules for sensor, data and process): Ontology
>  > modules aligned with use cases [sensor ontology -
>  > 
> http://mmisw.org/orr/#http://www.w3.org/2009/SSN-XG/Ontologies/SensorBasis.o
>  > wl - 09.12.15 ]
>  >
>  > The Issue database didn't seem to have a way to add comments, so I'll
>  > just make a brief note via the mail.  I don't know that this follows.
>  > I think device discovery, data discovery, and provenance can easily
>  > cut across any and all aspects of a sensor, and therefore can easily
>  > exercise all aspects of the ontology. _Structuring_ the ontology to
>  > match the use case seems an unusual step from that standpoint.  It
>  > should be able to validate the use case, but that doesn't require a
>  > mirrored structure, does it?
>  >
>  > John
>  >
>  >
>  > On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:43, Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group
>  > Issue Tracker wrote:
>  >
>  >>
>  >> ISSUE-3 (Modules for sensor, data and process): Ontology modules
>  >> aligned with use cases [sensor ontology - http://mmisw.org/orr/
>  >> #http://www.w3.org/2009/SSN-XG/Ontologies/SensorBasis.owl - 
>  >> 09.12.15 ]
>  >>
>  >> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/track/issues/3
>  >>
>  >> Raised by: Laurent Lefort
>  >> On product: sensor ontology -
>  > 
> http://mmisw.org/orr/#http://www.w3.org/2009/SSN-XG/Ontologies/SensorBasis.o
>  > wl
>  >> - 09.12.15
>  >>
>  >> The Use cases reviewed in
>  > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Use_cases
>  >> are organised into sub-categories:
>  >> - Device discovery  
>  >> - Data discovery
>  >> - Process/provenance
>  >>
>  >> The ontology structure should mirror three sub-categories so that we
>  >> can identify and discuss "simple" uses cases where only one sub-
>  >> module is needed and complex use cases where all the modules are
>  >> needed.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> 

-- 
Prof. Manfred Hauswirth
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG)
http://www.manfredhauswirth.org/
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 19:12:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 December 2009 19:12:12 GMT