- From: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:55:41 +0200
- CC: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Kelsey, William D escribió: > I agree that, to be successful (e.g. receive larger adoption/application, > there should be at least a minimum set of criteria used for vetting > anticipated application (use cases?). At the end, what supports the decision of whether to model some concrete information or not in the ontology, or whether to chose one ontology or another, are the ontology requirements; they should drive the development. Some of these requirements can be extracted from the use cases we already have: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Use_cases And from them we can reach some consensus on up to what extent to broaden or reduce the requirements for the ontology we plan to obtain by the end of the year. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Graybeal [mailto:graybeal@mbari.org] > Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:37 AM > To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org > Subject: purpose/goals for observations ontologies > > > From past minutes and today's telecon, I could not tell if the group > had a particular goal for reviewing and including observations > ontologies in the discussion. (I can see everyone thought it was a > good idea, but not what purpose they thought this would serve.) > > Can someone clarify how we want to use any observation ontology that > might be identified or created? For example, do we know we need an > ontology, or will it be enough just to have a list of phenomena? -- Dr. Raúl García Castro http://delicias.dia.fi.upm.es/~rgarcia/ Ontology Engineering Group (http://www.oeg-upm.net/) 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 Tuesday, 4 August 2009 14:56:18 UTC