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

Re: SSN/O&M RE: [Minutes] 2016-02-09 F2F Day 2

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:06:32 +0100
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56BB6E18.3060700@fi.upm.es>
El 10/2/16 a las 0:25, Simon.Cox@csiro.au escribió:
>> <trackbot> action-140 -- Armin Haller to Clearly separate
> observation, sensor, and deployment parts of ssn -- due 2016-02-16 --
> Relating to this, not sure if y'all noticed my suggestion at the
> bottom of my posting on Friday. I pointed out that for modularization
> we could also consider the concern that is reflected in the OGC's
> modularization - sensor descriptions (SensorML) vs observations (O&M)
> - aka producer vs consumer viewpoints. Is that what Action-140 is
> about ?


Regarding modularisation, I think that it is good since if supports 
usability and facilitates ontology evolution.

But I would go for a few modules. Simons' distinction between sensors 
(providers) and observations (users) makes sense.

I'm not sure yet about also modularizing other things (such as 
deployment, as the SSN Tasks page/ACTION 140 says). I see the potential 
benefit but we are also inviting people to use only one (or several) of 
our modules and using their own modules for other parts of their data 
(e.g., using myDeploymentOntology instead of the SSNDeployment module), 
which would go a bit against the idea of standardization.

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 Wednesday, 10 February 2016 17:07:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 2 September 2016 12:03:12 UTC