W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > December 2016

Usage of the SSN ontology

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 21:05:41 +0100
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <0b7721a5-9bc2-faad-9c3d-3104cd087a88@fi.upm.es>
Dear all,

During the last days, with the help of my colleague Nandana, we've been 
trying to identify the existing places where the SSN ontology has been 

We've focused on the usage of the SSN ontology (of the SSN vocabulary 
terms, specifically) in existing ontology and dataset catalogues.

We have automatically analysed the datasets included in LOD Laundromat, 
LOD Cloud Cache, and LODStats (even if they share plenty of datasets, 
there are some that are different). Regarding the ontologies, we have 
analysed those in the LOV ontology catalogue.

I have included a draft with the analysis in the github repository (I 
didn't know where to put it and we wanted to have HTML to generate 
easily the tables):

Before the pull request is accepted, you can check it here:

The main conclusion of the analysis is that the coverage of the SSN 
terms is quite low in the analysed datasets and ontologies (we only 
found 2 datasets and 9 ontologies).

This is logical, since datasets using the SSN ontology may not be openly 
published in the Web, may be part of streams of data that are not 
persisted, may be used internally in data processing infrastructures, etc.

Therefore, we are thinking on a second stage in the analysis in which we 
ask for ontologies and datasets that reuse the SSN ontology in an open call.

If we have access to the dataset/ontology, we can automate the analysis 
(i.e., generate the tables); if not, people should fill the table for 
the dataset/ontology.

However, before progressing further on this, I'd like to hear the 
opinions from the group.

Furthermore, note that even if this may be related to the implementation 
report (ACTION-213), with this approach we will be obtaining the 
implementation report for SSN 1.0, but not for SSN 2.0 (if we have 
equivalence mappings between terms in 1.0 and 2.0, we could generate the 
report for those equivalent terms).

Besides, the analysis could not result in a full coverage of the SSN 
vocabulary terms (i.e., it may happen that there are terms that have 
been used once or no used at all).

Kind regards,


Dr. Raúl García Castro

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 65 96 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Monday, 5 December 2016 20:06:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:27 UTC