Ontology scope

[jdacoello]

VSS was taken as the main reference when this ontology model VSSo started. VSS is weekly maintained and its idea has been well understood by the community. From my perspective, the ontology should not modify any aspect of what VSS is providing.

What I mean is that the hierarchy coming from the VSS meronymy should remain untouched in the ontology. Since the ontology is a much more expressive model where multiple hierarchies can co-exist, I propose the following change:

• Change the name of vsso-core to something more open that talks about vehicle data or vehicle information instead of signals. We should stop taking about the specification of signals because it is miss leading and the focus so far has been on high-level aspects of the vehicle. Here some options for the name:
• Keep the name vsso for the ontology version of VSS. This would be a mirror of the VSS model that is in sync via the mapping tool available in vss-tools.

[erikbosch]

There is a similar discussion in VSS (see COVESA/vehicle_signal_specification#516) to split the VSS syntax/tooling from the actual VSS catalog of signals, as the syntax/tooling can be reused also for other data trees. Then the VSS syntax/tooling would need a different name. One idea has been to call it Vehicle Signal Definition Language (VSDL).

I think it could be good to align naming so relationship between ontology and VSS is clear. If you have a general purpose expressive "vehicle information ontology model" then I assume there needs to be a profile or similar describing limitations of a "VSDL ontology model" and then vsso is the signal catalog in VSS represented as a VSDL ontology model, or something like that.

[Issalena2k23]

COVESA/vehicle_signal_specification#516