W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-ssn@w3.org > December 2010

SSN-XG news (1) OGC Meeting and DUL alignment issues

From: <Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 23:05:09 +1100
To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <78B63D5AF2343F48AB58315F2A35890904DA59@EXNSW-MBX05.nexus.csiro.au>

We will have a teleconf this week (see next message). Some info about what happened at the OGC meeting. I got some direct feedback on our work and some tough questions to answer.

1a) OGC Sydney TC Meeting (Laurent)

I have presented 
- at the SWE session: The Semantic Sensor Web and Provenance
- at the GeoSemantics session: Consistently Linking Data with the SSN Ontology Semantic Enablement or Disruption 

folder (requires OGC login): http://portal.opengeospatial.org/index.php?m=projects&a=view&project_id=82&tab=2&artifact_id=41215

My main messages were:
- Semantic Web is not just ontologies, not just Linked data (and billions of triples), it's also more useable and consistently linked data
- The SSN ontology can help to enrich XML-based standards (like SensorML) AND to query the provenance of data at a later stage of processing
- SSN ontology and OGC models (e.g. O&M) can be used jointly, even if they are at different levels of semantic granularity
- alignement to Dolce Ultra Lite forced clarification and in some cases raises issues yet to be jointly solved

Feedback received from audience:
- Good to know that the links in Linked Open Data are implemented both through relations between classes and between instances
- Specific concerns related to the alignement of the SSN ontology to DUL
 - the interpretation of a ssn:Observation as a dul:Situation (Simon, Boyan)
 - the design constraints imposed by disjoint axioms between DUL branches (similar issues also arising in EU projects)

1b) Open questions on the alignment to DUL. 

I was asked to justify the ssn:Observation --> dul:Situation (as opposed to dul:Event) - looks like we are not defining Observation at the same level of aggregation / abstraction which O&M uses.   

Also it is important to better document the potential semantic incompatibilities - when a class is deemed to be a specialisation of two DUL-disjoint classes and semantic confusion caused by multiple parents - when a class is a specialisation of a union of two DUL classes? 

We need to publish a DUL-stripped version of the ontology? 

And we need to better understand what is the maintenance process for DUL? Who maintains it? How is it maintained relatively to DOLCE? 

1c) Food for thought to help us to provide better answers: 

Brodaric and Probst: Enabling Cross-Disciplinary E-Science by Integrating Geoscience Ontologies with Dolce

A. Frigerio, A. Giordani & L. Mari [Outline of a General Model of Measurement. Synthese. DOI 10.1007/s11229-009-9466-3.

Claudio Masolo Founding properties on measurement FOIS 2010
ESSLLI 2010 Tutorial Objects, Events, Qualities: An Introduction to Formal Ontological Distinctions in DOLCE

A. Scherp, T. Franz, C. Saathoff, and S. Staab F-A Model of Events based on the Foundational Ontology DOLCE+DnS Ultralite

+ Janowicz and Compton The Stimulus-Sensor-Observation Ontology Design Pattern and its Integration into the Semantic Sensor Network Ontology  http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-668/paper12.pdf 

Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 12:05:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:17 UTC