18 August 2009

From Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Meeting Minutes

RRSAgent IRC log

Simon's Minutes

Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Michael to add links from table to Ontologies with same scope as respective work packages

Holger - Michael + Holger to rework ontology to see if we can use it as the common basis.


SSNX telecom

Present: David, Amit, Kerry, Holger, Michael, Simon, Arthur, Kevin, Payam, Luis


Actions from last meeting:

[NEW] ACTION: Holger to edit wiki to reflect scribe list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action01 <http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action01> ] [DONE] [NEW] ACTION: Holger will follow up with Simon re use cases [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action02 <http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action02> ] [DONE] [NEW] ACTION: All to send desired ontology capabilities to the mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action03 <http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action03> ] [PARTIAL] [NEW] ACTION: JohnGraybeal will create a page on the wiki with brief description of use cases (what the ontology should be used for), send here rather than the mailing list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action04 <http://www.w3.org/2009/08/12-ssn-minutes.html#action04> ] [DONE]

Michael created Wiki page for ontology working packages: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Semantic_Sensor_Net_Ontology <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Semantic_Sensor_Net_Ontology>

. suggested work packages in table here http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Suggested_Ontology_Working_Package s <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Suggested_Ontology_Working_Packag es>

with intention of getting volunteers to work on issues.

Chair solicited volunteers

AAA suggest adding column for input/candidate ontologies

Holger - need to link back to CSIRO candidate(s)

[NEW] ACTION: Michael to add links from table to Ontologies with same scope as respective work packages

Luis - the packages are not orthogonal, e.g. 'Metadata' could include much of the rest

Michael - CSIRO ontology was based on Sensor review, so does not cover full scope

Luis - we already learned about obs and sensor models. Why not construct minimum set of components from the 'review' that has already been done. Take core of these models and start from there.

Holger - start from scratch instead?

Luis - not everyone can look at details of each ontology.

Payam - Need to show how these different components are related to each other. How to fit in big picture? Need a high-order framework as starting point. To allow

Kerry - (unmuting problem) - Lots of sensor ontologies already available. We should be looking to improve what's there. Does not like idea of starting with simpler framework - would take too long, no value to wider community. Higher level framework is not difficult - we have a starting ontology, (the table) this is the higher level framework

Luis - what does core model look like? Are we all talking about the same thing? E.g. distinction between Observation and 'result'. Not all communities currently share the same terminology. Where do we attach provenance, quality, etc. Not clear that this is agreed already.

Luis - This group cannot define a new model. Take models as defined by OGC, and express in W3C RDF. Feedback to OGC if gaps, incorrect.

Michael - analysis was based on gaps, rather than intersection.

Luis - getting intersection is hard - need to understand all different ontologies. Better to start with one, and build.

Kerry - are we going in circles? Core ontology is already available. Does CSIRO ontology need more analysis? If we haven't done this so far, then is process failing? Do we need to wait for f2f - too far off? CSIRO ontology has been on table for some time already.

Payam - Still need a higher-level framework.

Who are users?

All boxes in table must be related to real-world model.

Kevin - CSIRO ontology is device-oriented.

Most discussion has related to O&M - how much detail on

Can't discuss CSIRO core ontology without fixing the missing O&M links.

Simon - CSIRO ontology needs to have O&M added - that's the blockage.

Luis - High-level framework incomplete (?)

Michael - Agree - can't discuss if can't understand.

Should revisit review - complement the 'gaps' approach with 'intersection'.

Simon - need to make explicit the areas of agreement (intersection) so we can confirm that we share common model?

Holger - Michael + Holger to rework ontology to see if we can use it as the common basis.

Luis - either (a) use CSIRO ontology as starting point, and look for core concepts from there or (b) we know there are gaps, dealt with in other ontologies, need to add them

Michael - Format - UML or minimal OWL? Too many conversions not good.

Luis + Simon - OWL is fine.

Holger - Any other comments?

Simon to send notes to Holger to post on Wiki.