W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-ssn@w3.org > August 2009

RE: Discussion about Observation/Phenomenon structure in the SSN Ontology

From: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:38:43 +0200
To: <bermudez@sura.org>
Cc: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9FAFB341E897445EA429530BD65B4E42@H07.jrc.it>
Luis
 
Right - (i) you reach out into the other standards better to show more of
the total graph, and (ii) you suppress some of the distracting detail. 
 
Of course this could all be done using the UML tool, providing the SensorML
and SWE Common models are complete (yes for the latter, no for the former,
but that could be fixed non-normatively quite easily. 
 
I strongly suggest it is best to stick with one of the the two formal
notations that we are already using - i.e. either UML class diagram (just
requires some attention to making the diagram pretty) or OWL/RDF (with some
automatic visualization) - rather than invent a new notation, the meaning of
which is either unclear or has to be laboriously explained. With UML I could
probably do what is necessary in a few minutes, starting with the original
model. The advantage of going to OWL/RDF is (a) it is likely to be more
acceptable to the target audience, (b) it would help with the important
meta-project, to produce a lossless ISO-UML-->OWL rule. 
 
Simon
 

--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy 
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325
 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox>
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
JRC:  <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

--------------------------------------------------------

 

  _____  

From: bermud@gmail.com [mailto:bermud@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luis Bermudez
Sent: Friday, 14 August 2009 16:55
To: Simon Cox
Cc: John Graybeal; Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au; Michael.Compton@csiro.au;
Wan-Ju.K.Gann@boeing.com; ocorcho@fi.upm.es; rgarcia@fi.upm.es;
krp@ecs.soton.ac.uk; janowicz@uni-muenster.de;
arthur.herzog@igd-extern.fraunhofer.de; Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au
Subject: Re: Discussion about Observation/Phenomenon structure in the SSN
Ontology


Hi Simon,

You are right. But, this figure is easier to to understand. It not only
explains O&M in a very simple way but the relation to SWE and the relation
to sensor and platforms, which most of the times confuses a lot folks. Also
it was created at the time where there were non UML models for SensorML nor
SweCommon, not sure if we already have those.

I am going to add more links to point to the original documents and yes is
in my todos to make a formal publication about it. I was thinking this
journal: http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/computer+
<http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/computer+&+mathematical+applications
/journal/12145> &+mathematical+applications/journal/12145

-luis




On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
wrote:


The UML diagram is clipped from the OGC document. Its not just another
interpretation, it is the model. 
 
Since the OGC document is only available as PDF, I prepared this web-page to
allow easier linking. 
It also contains more pedagogical materials than the OGC document, which is
a spec and therefore deliberately terse. 
 
(1. repetition, while good for pedagogical purposes, is a catastrophe in a
tech spec - more than one description of the same thing creates ambiguity!
2. more room for more elaborate examples ... I guess I should turn this into
a more formal publication, but couldn't figure out where. 
It doesn't fit the criteria for most peer-reviewed conventional
publications. Any suggestions?)
 
 



Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325
 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox>
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

 

  _____  

From: John Graybeal [mailto:jbgraybeal@mindspring.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 09:16
To: Simon Cox
Cc: bermudez@sura.org; Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au; Michael.Compton@csiro.au;
Wan-Ju.K.Gann@boeing.com; ocorcho@fi.upm.es; rgarcia@fi.upm.es;
krp@ecs.soton.ac.uk; janowicz@uni-muenster.de;
arthur.herzog@igd-extern.fraunhofer.de; Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au 

Subject: Re: Discussion about Observation/Phenomenon structure in the SSN
Ontology


I love this reference and document -- but how is it "the original UML"?  It
isn't on the OGC site, and all the explanatory text is not in an OGC
document.  And it says "It (the model) is summarized in the following UML
class diagram."  Which is what the other diagram says too.  So I'd say it's
another interpretation, though a much more detailed one. 

That said, I'm delighted to refer to it, as it neatly answers a lot of the
questions I had.  And it has many definitions!  I'd urge folks to read it --
and perhaps to adopt the same terminology (e.g., 'feature-of-interest') if
we mean these same concepts.  If we mean a different concept, it is
incumbent upon us to define exactly what we mean instead.

It prompts one question: As far as I know, we are not dealing with sampling
devices or systems, only sensors that report data. Correct?

John



On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Simon Cox wrote:


However, why rely on a secondary interpretation when you could go back to
the original UML 
- e.g.
https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/AppSchemas/ObservationsAndSampli
ng#Observation_Model  ^?^
 

Simon Cox

European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, 
Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262
Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy
Tel: +39 0332 78 3652
Fax: +39 0332 78 6325
 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu 
 <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox>
http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox 

SDI Unit:  <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 
IES Institute:  <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/
 

  _____  

From: bermud@gmail.com [mailto:bermud@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luis Bermudez
Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 02:52
To: Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au
Cc: Michael.Compton@csiro.au; jbgraybeal@mindspring.com;
Wan-Ju.K.Gann@boeing.com; ocorcho@fi.upm.es; rgarcia@fi.upm.es;
krp@ecs.soton.ac.uk; janowicz@uni-muenster.de;
arthur.herzog@igd-extern.fraunhofer.de; Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au;
simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu
Subject: Re: Discussion about Observation/Phenomenon structure in the SSN
Ontology


Dear Holger et. al.,

I think this figure: http://www.oostethys.org/best-practices/observation
summarizes O&M pretty well.
The main components are:

Observation
Feature
Property
Procedure
Results

-luis



On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM, <Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au> wrote:


Hi all,


 

In picking up today's discussion on the potential observation/data structure
in the ontology, I dare to summarise that there is some agreement on the
need for some sort of data/observation representation in the ontology. So,
the question is which concepts to include. So far, we have


 

*	Observation 

*	Feature 

*	PhysicalQuality 

*	Platform 

*	Location 

*	UnitOfMeasurement 


 

to represent data/observation. How do we need to arrange these,
change/add/delete to 1) reflect OGC O&M and 2) enable linkage to a separate
observation ontology?


 

Comments/suggestions/solutions are welcome.


 

Cheers,

Holger


 

Dr. Holger Neuhaus
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
Tasmanian ICT Centre
CSIROw

Phone: +61 3 6232 5547 | Fax: +61 3 6232 5000
 <mailto:holger.neuhaus@csiro.au> holger.neuhaus@csiro.au |
<http://www.csiro.au> www.csiro.au |
<http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/> Semantic Sensor Networks

Address: GPO Box 1538, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia

The Tasmanian ICT Centre is jointly funded by the Australian Government
through the Intelligent Island Program and CSIRO. The Intelligent Island
Program is administered by the Tasmanian Department of Economic Development,
Tourism and the Arts.

PLEASE NOTE
The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged.
Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this
email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return
email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent,
warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been
maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception
or interference. 

Please consider the environment before printing this email.


 




-- 
Luis Bermudez Ph.D.
Coastal Research Technical Manager
Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA)
bermudez@sura.org - Office: (202) 408-8211
1201 New York Ave. NW Suite 430, Washington DC 20005




John Graybeal
jbgraybeal@mindspring.com







--------------
NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS
--------------
John Graybeal   <mailto:jbgraybeal@mindspring.com>   
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org   



John Graybeal
jbgraybeal@mindspring.com







-- 
Luis Bermudez Ph.D.
Coastal Research Technical Manager
Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA)
bermudez@sura.org - Office: (202) 408-8211
1201 New York Ave. NW Suite 430, Washington DC 20005
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 15:39:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 August 2009 15:39:44 GMT