Re: purpose/goals for observations ontologies

John Graybeal escribió:
> Well, the use cases are quite extensive, but I am confident they will 
> never be exhaustive. But the problem (as you suggest) will be that 100 
> use cases serve no evaluative purpose, as they will include almost any 
> requirement and demand every conceivable entity.
> The use cases will have to be refined and prioritized (and a fair number 
> excluded, is my guess) if they are to be the basis of our determination 
> of what to include or not include in the model.
> Unfortunately, that is "real work" that could easily take the rest of 
> the year.  So it seems to me we have an impasse.

Maybe what we can do is to select the two most representative ones (by 
voting or leaving the decision to some people) and work upon them.

We can later extend them if needed.

> On Aug 4, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Kelsey, William D wrote:
>> Thank you for identifying this collection of pre-existing use cases from
>> separate organizations.  Are they sufficiently representative?  Have the
>> explicit/implicit requirements of the use cases been codified (perhaps on
>> the wiki as well?)?  If not, ought we to distill use case/other 
>> requirements
>> into a set of criteria to be met by the SSN-XG model?  How do the models
>> reviewed today satisfy the requirements identified in the use cases?
>> Best Regards,
>> W. David Kelsey
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raúl García Castro []
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:56 AM
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: purpose/goals for observations ontologies
>> 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:
>> 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 []
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:37 AM
>>> To:
>>> 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

Ontology Engineering Group (
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 16:09:04 UTC