Re: [ExternalEmail] Proposal for a new organisation of the SSN Ontology

... and I should mention that we use RDF, SSN + REST down to the 
physical sensor hardware level, i.e., on low-capability sensors. I 
think, if we can demonstrate that the concepts we work on in SSN not 
"only" work on a modeling level but can then be used directly down to 
the physical sensor, we have a winning case.

My 2 cents,

Manfred

Manfred Hauswirth wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au wrote:
>> Michael and all,
>> I strongly support this redesign, at least in principle (as Michael 
>> knows!).  I haven't had a chance to look at the detail, yet, I am afraid.
> 
> +1
> 
>> A point of minor disagreement, though. I think your message implies 
>> that (roughly) the SSN is "complete" and
>> everything else is covered by "stubs" and "examples". I think there is 
>> real extension work to be done (appropriately modularised), perhaps 
>> around "activation",
>> "humans as sensors" and possibly systems, platforms and deployment too. 
> 
> +1
> 
> Plus we need extension for energy and network structure. This is 
> something you come across when working on practical cases immediately 
> and it is fairly straight-forward but necessary. We extended SSN in 
> SPITFIRE (www.spitfire-project.eu) in these respects and can provide 
> this as a starting point for discussions.
> 
> SPITFIRE in my opinion is particularly interesting (shameless 
> self-promotion) for providing input to SSN as we combine RDF, ontologies 
> and REST (6LowPAN and CoAP - currently being standardized by IETF) in 
> this project to make sensor networks look like normal Web resources, 
> i.e., development should boil down to the same abstractions like normal 
> Web development - but there is a lot of work you need to do under the 
> hood to support this in a nice way.
> 
> CoAP will be the standard. The IoT people are going for REST. Ontologies 
> in IoT are all over the place. We need to support this from SSN's side 
> and get the necessary uptake outside the core Web community.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Manfred
> 
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Michael Compton [mailto:Michael.Compton@csiro.au]
>>> Sent: Friday, 8 June 2012 5:07 PM
>>> To: public-ssn-cg@w3.org
>>> Subject: [ExternalEmail] Proposal for a new organisation of the SSN
>>> Ontology
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It's pretty quiet on this list so far, so here is a try at generating
>>> some discussion.
>>>
>>> I've been thinking about the SSN Ontology and wondering if it wouldn't
>>> be better organised into a set of ontologies, rather than just one.  A
>>> couple of reasons:
>>>
>>> - the SSO (stimulus sensor observation) pattern isn't usable on its own
>>>
>>> - the SSN ontology introduces things like deployments, which aren't
>>> sensor only, and
>>>
>>> - I keep getting asked about the dolce alignment and how it's all very
>>> nice and all, but it seems like lots of users would rather maybe know
>>> it's there, but not have to use it
>>>
>>>
>>> So attached I have a first cut at doing this.
>>>
>>> - It starts with the SSO as an independent ontology.
>>>
>>> - Then importing this is the SSNO, which should amount to all the
>>> 'sensor only' concepts.
>>>
>>> - From there is SSNO plus the alignment as a separate branch and
>>> another branch which adds Systems and Devices and then Platforms and
>>> Deployments.
>>>
>>> - Finally, is the whole thing aligned to DUL.  This should be pretty
>>> much equivalent to the original ontology.
>>>
>>>
>>> I hope that's able to be navigated with the attached files.   My
>>> expectation is that the sensor ontology could be just the first two
>>> (SSO & SSNO) and then from there as a community we could define a
>>> number of useful stubs and examples - so take the systems and
>>> deployments branch as a stub of how to incorporate systems, devices
>>> and deployments.  For example, units, time, location, etc might also
>>> be useful stubs.  These together with a set of examples and libraries
>>> (say of definitions of real devices and domains) could really help to
>>> get people started with the ontology and help us share common fragments.
>>>
>>> All this should give us a somewhat more minimal ontology and a better
>>> organisation of extensions etc.
>>>
>>> Thoughts, ideas, comments, disagreements, etc..?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Prof. Manfred Hauswirth
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI)
National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG)
http://www.manfredhauswirth.org/

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 09:44:45 UTC