W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Usage of the SSN ontology

From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:18:36 +0100
To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <f149a102-bef2-9c46-84f9-873a0aa71630@fi.upm.es>
Dear all,

Here you have an update on the usage of the SSN (1.0) ontology. Some 
people from my research group have filled the form with some more 
ontologies and datasets and I have also taken into account the 
references provided by Amélie Gyrard in her email.

Now the analysis has increased from 2 to 10 datasets and from 9 to 15 

However, if you take a look at the results, you can see that there are 
still plenty of gaps (i.e., terms for which we don't have implementation).

Therefore, please fill in the form that I created to include those 
datasets and ontologies that you know that are using the SSN ontology:

Remember that if the dataset/ontology is available (even through a 
SPARQL endpoint), we can make the coverage analysis for you. So you just 
have to include the link.

Kind regards,

El 5/12/16 a las 21:05, Raúl García Castro escribió:
> 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

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, 16 January 2017 17:19:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:28 UTC