Re: Proposal for a new organisation of the SSN Ontology

Dear all,

I haven't taken a look in detail to the ontology files but I also think 
that it is a good idea.

For example, in the SemsorGrid4Env project we had to extend the SSN 
ontology to cover further requirements that we had (e.g., representing 
observation collections such as those in the O&M specification).

So, it would be nice to have, instead of a big ontology, a set of 
ontology modules that allow covering different requirements. This can 
lead to have different "profiles" or combinations of modules to be used 
in different scenarios.

Kind regards,

El 08/06/12 09:07, Michael Compton escribió:
> 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
>
>


-- 

Dr. Raúl García Castro
http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/

Ontology Engineering Group
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19

Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 09:58:23 UTC