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

Status of Operating model example - Reuse of external ontologies by the XG - What happens after the XG issues?

From: <Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:06:39 +1000
To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B484B32EAEABE14AA5409575229CECF30127ED3BFC30@EXNSW-MBX05.nexus.csiro.au>
Dear SSN-XGers,

I must say Simon's remark on the example recently posted by Michael is not in sync with the current phase of development for this specific sub-part of the ontology (see below - how we work). 

Let me try to clarify the situation so that everyone can contribute on the underlying issues more efficiently (as we have roughly two months left before the closure date of the XG!):
- Michael has delivered a preliminary example as a complement of his work on the OWL version of the specification. Please, note that we have asked for volunteers for the example itself at previous teleconfs. 
- I have reused (adapted) ontologies developed outside the XG for a larger example (Phenonet) designed to drive the XG conversation where it should be headed now: how do we wrap up what we've done so far and what do we intend to do next? 


For each sub-parts of the XG ontology, we have to complete the specification (and also to keep a best possible record of the discussion we had), then we have to finalise the OWL products: the ontology and the examples, then we have to get everything into a publishable state (report, documentation). 
Ideally, I would like to have micro-teams of two or three working jointly on all these aspects for topics which match their area of work.

The way we have worked until now is that (A) we have an open discussion on the specs (wiki page plus diagram), then (B) we build an OWL version of it and create light examples then (C) we create more complete examples and finally (D) we wrap everything up and work out what was important in this exploratory work.

I am trying to run the same cycle for all the sub-parts of the ontology and especially to wrap up the work done earlier on. Our recent discussion on "who's doing what on the examples" corresponds to the start of phase C. 

The page which records this work breakdown structure (and our progress) is:


For the operating and survivability sub-parts where Michael's example lies, we are currently in the transition from (A) to (B) so it is definitively too early to nit pick minor issues especially on some peripheral aspects of it.

In the past meetings, we have asked for volunteers to help Payam because we are aware that we are short of real world examples (and of references) for this relatively specialised area.
Michael volunteered the OWL file and a first pass example to keep the momentum. He has not made any definitive choice to use UCUM or anything else as an external ontology. MUO is simply the unit ontology which was used for the CSIRO ontology, earlier on.


Please note, that at this stage, the XG has not mandated the use of external ontologies e.g. units of measurement or quantities. The goal to develop and maintain a "standard" Unit of Measurement ontology is not in the charter of the XG but planning for a sustainable use of the XG ontology after the end of the XG is indeed important. 

I have started on a more complete example for the XG ontology: Phenonet (which I introduced at the last teleconf). I have created a separated page to record my progress and my plans to reuse (adapt) external ontologies in this context: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Agriculture_Meteorology_Sensor_Network

Again, I'd like to encourage the XG participants to come with alternatives examples (complete ones or specialised ones). At the last teleconfs, we have identified specific areas where contributions are needed: Operating model, Mobility (linkage with Platform), Observation Geometry, Calibration 


The goal of ACTION-30 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/track/actions/30 is to clarify how the conditions in which we publish the XG ontology (Action-30) 

ISSUE-9 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/track/issues/9  is asking "What happens to the XG ontology after the end of the XG?" 

IMHO, this discussion should cover the main ontology but also the examples and external ontologies: basically, everything which will be posted on the W3C web site as part of the XG deliverables.

At the last meting, we have also recognised that it is the right time to broaden this discussion on the follow-up activities for the XG. Again, can I call for inputs for what is a very important part of the XG report itself?


PS: For those interested by the UoM ontology topic, there is an OASIS working group on Unit of Measurements http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=quomos 
And NASA (which has recently joined W3C) has also funded some work in these area: Ralph Hodgson (TopQuadrant) has recently presented the status of QUDT at a QUOMOS meeting. 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of P.Barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk
Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 11:19 PM
To: Simon Cox; Compton, Michael (ICT Centre, Acton); public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Subject: RE: operating and survival conditions

I hope that I have understood it correctly; Can we use a part of NASA's SWEET ontology for the units of measurement?

Best regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Cox
Sent: Wednesday, 23 June 2010 10:59 PM
To: Compton, Michael (ICT Centre, Acton); public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Subject: RE: operating and survival conditions


I fully agree that an authoritative source of URIs for units and quantities
is required, but submit that this is a poor choice. 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Michael.Compton@csiro.au
Sent: Tuesday, 22 June 2010 15:00
To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Subject: operating and survival conditions

I've marked up Payam's suggestion for operating and survival conditions into
an OWL file (as an extension of the current version of the ontology).  See

I hope I've interpreted it properly.  All comments welcome - Payam, if you
see anything amiss let me know.

On the same page is an example that encodes the operating and survival
conditions for a sensor.

Both files are attached here.

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 03:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:16 UTC