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

I fully agree with Manfred proposal.

I see also that Raúl has already commented the need of presenting
extensions that are normally appearing when we are trying to reuse the SSN
ontology.

Maybe a good idea would be to identify all those areas and start a similar
process of listing those ontologies that have been described in those
areas, analysing them, and proposing a few that could be useful and well
aligned with SSN, to increment uptake.

Oscar

-- 

Oscar Corcho
Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
Facultad de Informática
Campus de Montegancedo s/n
Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España
Tel. (+34) 91 336 66 05
Fax  (+34) 91 352 48 19






El 13/06/12 11:40, "Manfred Hauswirth" <manfred.hauswirth@deri.org>
escribió:

>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 Thursday, 14 June 2012 13:25:46 UTC