BAO, BOP, OFO, BOT_feedback

[iryosa]

1. Ontologies’ evaluation (criteria used):

• BOT scores a “No” on all Alignment criteria and a “No” on Reused/Extended, although it is widely reused.

• BOP scores “No” on Reused/Extended, although it is reused and extended.

2. Domain classification (concerns regarding the necessity of primary and secondary domains):

• BOP: primary domain Energy, although it is rarely applied in that area. BOP - secondary domain is IoT Sensors/Actuators, but it does not appear when filtering.
• SAREF4CITY is labelled as an IoT ontology, but it doesn't cover IoT-related concepts.

[fbosche]

• BOT: the database does say "Yes" for Reused. We need to check why it doesn't appear like this
• BOP resue: If reused, it's not by any of the ontologies we have. Could an example be provided to substantiate this?
• BOP domains: Which domains should be given?
• SAREF4CITY: I thought SAREF in general was about sensors(/actuators), no? But, I agree it does have a broader "smart" focus. What should we classify it as?

[fbosche]

@iryosa See my responses above. I think only the BOP and SAREF4CTIY classifications need to be addressed.

[iryosa]

@fbosche Fixed:

• BOP is reused by BAO and OPO
• BOP domain updated to IoT Sensors/Actuators (primary) and Energy (secondary)
• SAREF4CITY domain - IoT Sensors/Actuators (primary) and secondary updated to Geographic Information

[fbosche]

If you've updated the database and pushed it to the repository, then you may Close this comment.
Note: I've now noticed something interesting about ontology reuse we can discuss at the next meeting (and that the upcoming automated process is addressing).