Testbed provider feedback

[NSeydoux]

Hello, During the training for testbed providers, we were asked for feedback regarding the ontology design. Here are the feedbacks we gathered at LAAS-CNRS :

Improvements

• A comment might be misleading: if virtual entity is a subclass of entity, then associating the definition of "IoT object" to Entity is contradictory with the virtual nature of Virtual entity
• The notion of feature of interest is absent. it is partly replaced by the notion of coverage, however depending of the kind of sensor it might be more relevant to defined the FoI

Minor improvements

• Some comments are not informative
  • Virtual Entity class
  • Source
  • Domain of interest
  • IoT entity or object
• The comment for "Interface description" class could be more detailed
• Concepts prefix could be displayed on the figure on the ontology documentation

Suggestions

• The ID data property could be declared a functional property

[UniSurreyIoT]

Hi NSeydoux, With regards to Virtual Entity and Object, the corresponding concept would be Virtual Object not Object. The term "Virtual Object" (which we haven't added) has been adopted in previous EU research projects. Our reference is from the IoT-A project.

The question to debate is that whether there is a difference between Entity and Object.

With regards to feature of Interest, we have a class called Attribute, which is similar to it, if not the same.

Let me know what you think.

BR, Tarek