- From: Manfred Hauswirth <manfred.hauswirth@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:11:32 +0000
- To: Michael Compton <Michael.Compton@csiro.au>
- CC: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group WG <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
+1 Michael Compton wrote: > 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. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Prof. Manfred Hauswirth Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI) National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) http://www.manfredhauswirth.org/
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 19:12:12 UTC