• Google "pad": https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1cCzYcOtSPd9PQ9f-rcNTlOHlvO7E4n...
• Last meeting minutes: http://marinemetadata.org/community/teams/ontdevices/agendas/am20100727

Agenda

1. Logistics: Welcome, Minutes Review, Agenda Review
2. Updates to the ontology
3. Misc
4. End Logistics: Next meeting, Action items, Attendees

Minutes

Logistics: Welcome, Minutes Review, Agenda Review

• google doc "pad": see link above
• Minutes review - No comments
• Agenda approval.

Updates to the ontology

From the facets list, the following additions/changes were made:

• 4.a Quality assurance procedures
  + class QualityAssuranceProcedure (subclass of OperationalProcedure)
• 4.e Maintenance procedures
  + class MaintenanceProcedure (subclass of OperationalProcedure)

• + class OperationalProcedureSchedule
• * class CalibrationSchedule now is subclass of OperationalProcedureSchedule 
• The following properties now have OperationalProcedureSchedule as domain:
  • hasEnforcementQuality
  • hasMinimumFrequency
  • hasProvides
  • calibrationScheduleHasOmissionConsequences
    which was renamed to hasOmissionConsequence (and it's not functional anymore)
• + object property: Device hasOperationalProcedureSchedule OperationalProcedureSchedule
• * object property hasCalibrationSchedule is now a subproperty of hasOperationalProcedureSchedule with the domain and range classes restricted to Sensor and CalibrationSchedule, respectively.

• 6. Manufacturer Documentation
  + datatype property: Device hasManualDocumentation rdfs:Resource [0..*]

• 7.a.2 Unique Identifier:
  + Datatype property System hasUniqueIdentifier string [0..1]
• 7.a.3 Owner
  + Datatype property System hasOwner string [0..*]
• 7.a.3 Point of Contact
  + Datatype property System hasPointOfContact string [0..*]
• 7.d.2.2 Performance/quality/known issues
  + class Issue
  + Datatype property Device hasIssue Issue [0..*]
• 7.d.2.3 Dataset links
  + Datatype property System hasDataset xsd:anyURI [0..*]

Resulting ontology: http://mmisw.org/ont/mmi/20100810T004853/device (click image to open full resolution in new window)

Discussion

• Properties with too specific domains!  Do not specify domain unless there is a good reason.
• Maintenance and re-use problem.
• In some cases the domain is the union of other classes, eg., hasPointOfContact’s domain is the union System + Manufacturer
• An immediate benefit of the current approach is that we are very clear (at least by looking at the ontology diagram) about the main use we want for the properties. For example, we are at this point only interested in being able to say that Systems and Manufacturers have points of contact.
• If we leave hasPointOfContact without any explicit domain (ie., with implicit domain rdfs:Resource==anything), how can we emphasize the actual use we are mostly interested in?
• As said in a previous meeting, the current approach does not prevent us from introducing the most general properties later on and making the current properties subproperties of the relevant ones (perhaps with some appropriate renamings).
• OWL 2 annotations may be used to better address this issue.
• Also look at OWL 2 profiles (one or more restrictions)
  • important to us?
  • nailed down domains good or bad? 
• Which property restrictions are more for documenting than for reasoning?

Misc

• The following aspects proposed but not discussed in 2010-07-27's agenda:
  • Material (should it be a subclass of ValuedPhysicalProperty?)
  • hasServiceAccessPoint (Deployment hasServiceAccessPoint anyUri ?)
  • CalibrationValue.hasCount (what was the original intend of this property?)

• Again some discussion about "static" and "dynamic" concerns, even its separation into two ontologies. See issue #10.

End Logistics: Next meeting, Action items, Attendees

Action Items

DevOnt tracker: http://code.google.com/p/devont/issues/list

• [Bob M] Look into OWL 2 re. "properties with too specific domains?" issue. ( #24.)

• [Bob M] provide pointer to presentation.
• [Nan,Bob A] send instance example (in a CSV-like format) to Luis.
• [Carlos] complete version of ontology document

• [?] Determine license
  
• [Bob A., Carlos] look into ProcessOutput vs. MeasurementCapability related issues, especially in the context of the Multibeam ontology.
  
• [John and Reyna] Follow up on scale references

Next Telecon Time

Next telecon is Tuesday 2010.08.24 at 1500 UTC.

Attendees: