ISSUE-3: Ontology modules aligned with use cases
Modules for sensor, data and process
Ontology modules aligned with use cases
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Preliminary (DRAFT) versions of the SSN ontology
- Raised by:
- Laurent Lefort
- Opened on:
- 2009-12-16
- Description:
- 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. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- 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.owl - 09.12.15 ] (from manfred.hauswirth@deri.org on 2009-12-22)
- 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.owl - 09.12.15 ] (from Michael.Compton@csiro.au on 2009-12-18)
- 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.owl - 09.12.15 ] (from simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu on 2009-12-17)
- 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.owl - 09.12.15 ] (from jbgraybeal@mindspring.com on 2009-12-16)
- 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 ] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2009-12-16)
Related notes:
Issue discussed via mailing list and reviewed during SSN teleconf http://www.w3.org/2009/12/22-ssn-minutes.html
A majority of SSN participants don't think it is required to align the structure of the ontology in modules with the three categories of use cases as proposed. The group decision is to reject the proposal to modularise the ontology in relation to the three categories of use cases.
Rationale: no clear benefit, can be done at a different level
Highlights of the discussion:
- John Graybeal: 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?
- Michael Compton: 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.
- Michael Compton: 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?
- Kerry Taylor: Use cases should overlap, structuring into modules may not be helpful
Display change log