- From: John Graybeal <jbgraybeal@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:32:44 -0800
- To: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group WG <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
The Issue database didn't seem to have a way to add comments, so I'll just make a brief note via the mail. I don't know that this follows. I think device discovery, data discovery, and provenance can easily cut across any and all aspects of a sensor, and therefore can easily exercise all aspects of the ontology. _Structuring_ the ontology to match the use case seems an unusual step from that standpoint. It should be able to validate the use case, but that doesn't require a mirrored structure, does it? John On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:43, Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > ISSUE-3 (Modules for sensor, data and process): Ontology modules > aligned with use cases [sensor ontology - http://mmisw.org/orr/ > #http://www.w3.org/2009/SSN-XG/Ontologies/SensorBasis.owl - 09.12.15 ] > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/track/issues/3 > > Raised by: Laurent Lefort > On product: sensor ontology - http://mmisw.org/orr/#http://www.w3.org/2009/SSN-XG/Ontologies/SensorBasis.owl > - 09.12.15 > > The Use cases reviewed in http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Use_cases > are organised into sub-categories: > - Device discovery > - Data discovery > - Process/provenance > > The ontology structure should mirror three sub-categories so that we > can identify and discuss "simple" uses cases where only one sub- > module is needed and complex use cases where all the modules are > needed. > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 06:33:17 UTC