- From: Michael Compton <Michael.Compton@csiro.au>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:08:48 +1100
- To: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group WG <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
A couple of points about this one - I think showing how the ontology relates to the use cases is an important idea. Doing so would certainly portray both the ontology and the use cases in a way that would make them both accessible and understandable relative to each other. - Actually structuring the ontology around these use cases does seem unusual. A modular structure is good idea, but it should more represent the natural boundaries and groupings of the ideas. - A view or representation of the ontology, while conforming to it's logical meaning, doesn't have to represent it's modular structure or all it's parts. For example if the ontology is split into modules A, B and C, but a particular use case required B, parts of A and only a little of C, then it would seem natural to me to highlight those aspects in the presentation of the ontology for that use case, perhaps presenting the concepts in a way suitably showing those parts together and not highlighting the 'real' modularisation of the ontology. So why not produce such views (i.e. just as diagrams) suitable for explaining particular points and use cases, and if it's natural and correct why not think about it in terms of that representation when think about the use case? - I think I think this because I always see an ontology and its representation as distinct things - though many seem to disagree, so here's my explanation. Like any data structure or model an ontology does not have to be exposed in it's entirity, or at all, to 'users'. Just as in programming where we build data structures internally, to say objects, and then expose interfaces to them, here we can build the ontology as a model, but expose or represent it in any way that respects its meaning but is more appropriate to the task at hand. For example we have already discovered in the group that there is a division between caring mostly about data (observations) and mostly about sensors. These groups have different requirements of and different focusses on the ontology. So it would seem natural then to present to say an observation focused user a view of the ontology that highlights and looks like their view of the world, rather than presenting the ontology in its whole, which may not at all look like or feel like their view of the world. Here I mean present in either an interface for using the ontology, or document explaining it etc. So I think that we should structure the ontology in the most natural way, but, in the sense in those last two points, I think Laurent's suggestion has some merit in both explaining and potentially validating the ontology for the particular uses that we have identified. Michael On 17/12/2009, at 18:57 , Simon Cox wrote: > +1 > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org > ] On > Behalf Of John Graybeal > Sent: 17 December 2009 07:33 > To: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group WG > Subject: Re: 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.o > wl - 09.12.15 ] > > 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.o > wl >> - 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 Friday, 18 December 2009 01:09:27 UTC