Re: Usage of the SSN ontology

Dear all,

Regarding the title of the new ACTION-228 (To put out a general call for 
existing implementations), from what I understand of the W3C process, 
issuing a call for implementations is something that you do once the 
document is a Candidate Recommendation. Therefore, we are not yet there 
with the SSN ontology.

However, in order to continue with this, I have prepared a form to 
include existing implementations of the SSN ontology, in terms of the 
datasets and ontologies where the vocabulary terms have been used:

https://goo.gl/forms/RNZqupczFR14rMEz2

Then, I propose to follow the next steps:

1.- Everyone in the group fills the form to include their existing 
implementations of SSN 1.0. Not yet an open call but allows us advancing 
the work and seeing potential features at risk.

2.- Once we publish the SSN Candidate Recommendation, we send out a call 
for implementations of SSN 2.0. This one will be distributed broadly and 
we will have to update the form with the new vocabulary terms.

Please, take a look at the form and give any feedback on it (as well as 
on the steps proposed.

Kind regards,

El 7/12/16 a las 7:40, Raúl García Castro escribió:
> El 7/12/16 a las 6:20, Armin Haller escribió:
>> Hi Raúl,
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the very detailed implementation report! I have
>> raised it today in the meeting and asked people who have
>> implementations of SSN or ontologies using/extending SSN adding them
>> to the page you created.
>>
>> Apologies, we also assigned you an Action item
>> https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/228 in your absence
>> (which is arguably bad form!) to send around a general request for
>> implementation evidence.
>>
>> For now, we should try to include this first implementation evidence
>> report in the next WD, or at least link it from the WD.
>
> Hi Armin,
>
> No problem with the action. :)
>
> I just was waiting for the "green light"; I'll prepare the request for
> implementations.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>> On 6/12/16, 7:05 am, "Raúl García Castro" <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>>
>>     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
>>     reused.
>>
>>     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):
>>     https://w3c.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
>>
>>     Before the pull request is accepted, you can check it here:
>>     https://rgcmme.github.io/sdw/ssn-usage/
>>
>>     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
>>     http://www.garcia-castro.com/
>>
>>     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
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://www.garcia-castro.com/

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 Wednesday, 7 December 2016 16:32:42 UTC