These are the ontology attributes that we suggested presenting to the other members of the team at the ontology review telecon. A sentence or two about each attribute should be sufficient.
Items with asterisks (*) were added after the telecon, and were not considered in the evaluations.
Primary purpose/target: Why was this ontology created?
Sponsorship *: Is this ontology sponsored/maintained by an organization, following described procedures?
Status: Is this an actively maintained ontology, or not? Would you consider it 'complete', or not?
Concept Documentation: Do the concepts have textual descriptions (always, often, sometimes, rarely, never)?
Reference Documentation: Does the ontology contain references to relevant publications or specification documents?
Consistency *: Does the ontology contain anomalies (redundancy, inconsistency, confusing terms or explanations)? Is it reasonably self-explanatory?
Validation *: Is the ontological model theoretically supported? Has it been formally evaluated?
Key framework concept(s): What are the one, two, or three key concepts around which the ontology is organized? Provide the name and brief description (a phrase) describing each of the key concepts.
Range of subject matter: With respect to sensors, is this ontology narrowly focused, moderately broad, or comprehensive?
Level of sophistication: Is this ontology more like a basic hierarchy of concepts, or is it really semantically sophisticated?
Adoption: Is anyone other than the creator using this ontology? Are there many examples?
Best feature(s): What conceptual aspects of this ontology should be represented the SSN ontology if possible?
Weakest feature(s): What issues does this ontology have that should be avoided in the SSN ontology? (Do not consider lack of completion as an issue, in this context.)
Other remarks: Anything else of particular interest that you think people should know about?
Good basis: Would you recommend this ontology (or part of it) as the basis for the SSN ontology? Which parts?