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

Re: ISSUE-2 (All processes are systems): All processes are systems [sensor ontology - http://mmisw.org/orr/#http://www.w3.org/2009/SSN-XG/Ontologies/SensorBasis.owl - 09.12.15 ]

From: Michael Compton <Michael.Compton@csiro.au>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:32:59 +1100
Message-ID: <5B28244C-3D5E-4F7C-A157-F3BD8FA82EEB@csiro.au>
To: Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group WG <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>

Maybe I should just address the dot points.


> - A process has inputs and outputs

ok

> - A system has components

ok

(1)
> - A sensor is a process
(2)
> - Some devices are sensors

> - Some devices are sensors - because they have an output

are we saying that a sensor is a process or that sensing is a  
process.  For example,  lets say:

* I have a device that measures wind chill (i.e. it measures  
temperature and wind speed and does a calculation), by (2) above it's  
a device that is-a sensor, and by (1) it must be a process (I'm  
uncomfortable with this already because we have now said that a device  
is-a process, which seems wrong to me.  I'd think a device might  
follow some process, but this is-a relationship seems strange).

* Now what if I write down the wind speed and temperature measurements  
myself and do the calculation myself.  What's the sensor here?  It  
can't really be me, can it - it would seem strange to say that I am a  
process and a sensor.  Seems more like I followed a process and thus  
calculated wind chill. So maybe the sensor is the process I followed?   
Or is it the act of me following the process?  In either case we have  
a problem because above we said a device is-a sensor and then here we  
are saying something entirely different (a process or the act of  
following it) is-a sensor.

I would say that a device cannot be a sensor (well not in the process  
sense that we have been talking about) otherwise we are conflating an  
abstract (a process) and a concrete thing (a device).

Seems from all the discussions that we have had that sensing is-a  
process - or that some processes result in sensing something, and that  
a device or a person, or a regional observing system might act out  
such a process and thus sense something.

So I would be more comfortable with

- Sensing is a process
- Some devices can act as sensors

And then that a device that senses something could be a 'sensing  
device', which thus acts out some sensing process.

but I don't agree with (2) above


> - Some devices are systems

Why aren't all devices systems?  Even if they only have one component  
or we don't want to write down all their components?


> - Some systems are sensors


It depends, is our definition "A system has components" or "All things  
with components are systems"?  The question itself is silly, but my  
point is why are we trying to use the same component relationship to  
describe devices and processes?

I'm having trouble seeing the example above with me calculating wind  
chill as a system.


Michael









On 20/12/2009, at 2:19 , Luis Bermudez wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> The only thing we have said about systems is that it contains  
> components...
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Michael Compton <Michael.Compton@csiro.au 
> > wrote:
> my conceptions/preconceptions/misconceptions are as follows.
>
> - A sensor need not be a physical device.  Kevin's definition of "An  
> entity capable of observing a phenomenon and returning an observed  
> value." seems ok to me.
>
> agree !
>
>
> - A Sensor need not be a single entity - it can be composed of any  
> number of sub sensors, each perhaps of their own identity, each  
> perhaps measuring different things that get combined into the whole.
>
> This is why it can be a system . Maybe we need to add also:
>
> Some sensors are systems
>
>
>
> - The following things 'are' sensors
> *a temperature sensor (i.e. a physical device) at location l
> *a program on a computer (far away from location l) that can read in  
> the temperature at location l and a wind speed estimate for location  
> l and calculate the windchill at l
>
>
> Yes.. Commonality is that a sensor has an output and therefore are  
> processes.
>
>
> More correctly, in both cases something has acted as a sensor for a  
> particular phenomenon: a device in the first instance, and the  
> program in the second - if I wrote down the temperature and wind  
> speed measurements on a piece of paper and calculated the wind chill  
> myself, then I have acted as the sensor.
>
> - The example of the wind chill sensor means that sensors can have  
> multiple components, and I guess the components may themselves be  
> interesting.
>
> - A device (a physical piece of hardware) can also be broken down  
> into components (presumably other devices, but perhaps also systems  
> - software systems etc) but I don't see that as having anything to  
> do with sensors or their decomposition into parts.  For example,  
> imagine a device that can measure wind speed and temperature, that  
> has a small inbuilt chip that can calculate wind chill, round  
> measurements, compute averages and a radio to communicate its  
> readings.  It's physical decomposition into its components is  
> different from its decomposition into the roles it can play as a  
> sensor.  So the two sorts of decomposition may be related, but not  
> equivalent.
>
>
> So I think this still holds  true:
>
> - Some devices are sensors - because they have an output
> - Some devices are systems - because they have components
>
> But if you wnat to propose other statements which make the system  
> composition more explict, please do so.
>
>
>
>
> - I'm also unsure about the word system and in particular it's  
> relationship to process.
>
> We are separating them..
>
> - partly I see the problem as linguistic: i.e. we are using the word  
> sensor in two different contexts.  We think of things in terms of  
> 'ah this thing is a sensor', but we also say 'a sensor is a  
> process'.  Is what we are really saying that to sense something is  
> to follow a process that leads to a value as an estimate of a  
> phenomenon.  In which case a sensor isn't a thing at all it's really  
> a 'to sense do...' or 'was sensed by doing...'.  So if we take it  
> that to sense something is to follow a process that estimates a  
> value, then what is a system and why is a sensor one?  To think of a  
> system as a collection of components in some technical sense and  
> then make sensor one of these is to take the 'ah this thing is a  
> sensor' approach, but then we also agree on 'a sensor is a process'  
> which now seems to make a sensor not a system.  So is the biggest  
> problem here simply that we (copying from SWE) have decided that  
> systems have components and sensors are also made up of things, so  
> it must be a system - where as there are actually two hierarchies  
> here and we should represent them with different relationships?
>
>
> The only think we are saying about sensor is that it has an output !
>
>
> So how about....
>
> a System is a device/computer system/software system that is made up  
> of components
>
> I think we do not need to be explict about device/computer system/ 
> software.  For example, a regional observing system can also be a  
> system.
>
> a Sensor is a process (a description of inputs/outputs, some steps  
> and data flows) which may also be made up of sub sensors
>
> yes.
>
>
> a System may play the role of a sensor for phenomenon X.
>
> So is this OK ?
>
> - Some systems are sensors
>
>
> but I suggested before that Some sensors are systems
>
> I think both are ok.. what do you think ?
>
> -luis
>
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17/12/2009, at 19:11 , John Graybeal wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2009, at 12:00, Manfred Hauswirth wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> thanks for your insightful comments. Some more comments from my side.
>
> John Graybeal wrote:
> Regarding "all systems are processes": Honestly, I would not  >
> understand this (I stated this at the F2F). For me, you have
> systems  > which include one ore more processes. If systems are
> processes, why  > have systems at all. My notion of systems would
> informally consist  > of processes, scenarios, deployments, etc.
> The question "why have systems at all?" is the crux here.  Can we
> state clearly when a process is not a system? Or in other words,
> how is a system more narrow than a process?
> Incidentally, my notion of processes would informally consist of
> the same list.  I am also having trouble drawing the distinction.
>
> Interesting! I think this may be due to our different background (I
> assume your are not a computer scientist like myself - without
> evidence I may add).
>
> Computer Science and Statistics. 30 years software and systems
> support.  (No worries!)
>
> In my area (computer science, information systems) systems would be
> defined as I do and a system would consist of software and hardware
> and the processes would clearly be "inside" the system as part of
> the software, so there is a clear distinction between "system" and
> "process" (other CS/IS people - please feel free to contradict me),
> whereas you seem to define this more from the viewpoint of an
> experiment which is being observed (?) where processes come into
> play as part of the observation process (please correct me - I am
> guessing here).
>
> I'm using one of the general meanings of the word 'process', which
> applies not just to what's happening in side the computer or
> component, but what happens as all the software and components
> interact with each other.  There are local processes and there are
> external processes.
>
> It isn't driven by experiment orientation but by broader CS
> orientation -- dealing with engineering systems of systems, and
> including the human component in those systems, and modeling all the
> above as processes (which may, or may not, then be computerized in the
> new version of the system).  Anyway, just a different viewpoint,
> neither right nor wrong.
>
> The problem here seems to lie in different conceptualizations in
> different communities - all of which done according to the specific
> needs of a community. Now, while this may complicate things, I think
> it is also a useful and actually mandatory exercise. While I may
> claim, that I need to understand the conceptualization because as an
> CS/IS person I will have to build (software/hardware) systems
> (sorry! no other term comes to mind) which need to manage
> information coming out of observations, you may claim exactly the
> same from you point of view (and rightfully so). The question now
> for me is: Who are our users and how to serve them best? Where's the
> sweet spot?
>
> Concur. I presumed from the start that the group was interested in
> modeling hardware elements, but I have found it useful to consider
> those hardware components as processes in a larger system of systems.
> They take data in and transform it to other data that is spit out.
> This is one useful definition of a process, as Luis notes.
>
> Oops, got off track there! But our agreed point is to agree on which
> type of devices (= which group of users) we want to make the ontology
> for.  My assumption/preference was the group that used physical
> devices to transform measurable phenomena into digital data (because
> that's the easiest to model and the most immediately useful).  But I
> can go with whatever on this, as long as we all understand.
>
> PhysicalSystem: I don't remember the exact reason for this. Did
> we  > mean deployment?
> I assume this is to distinguish it from a software system.
> Sensor as subclass of Device: I think this is too narrow. I can
> think of sensors which are not devices at all, e.g., human
> "sensors"  > in the context of social sensing (which is an accepted
> concept in  > many domains including CS by now). Making sensors a
> subclass of  > device limits us to purely technical systems in
> hardware, IMHO. Is  > an RSS feed a device? I can clearly use it as
> a sensor. I think that  > Device should be a subclass of Sensor.
> Even in existing middelware  > systems like our GSN we followed
> that path (without having an  > ontology in mind at all).
> This gets to purpose of the ontology.  As I understood it, the
> group was originally constructed to model hardware sensors. (May
> have just been a wrong assumption on my part.  More precisely, what
> we clearly were not doing is modeling samplers, that is, devices
> that return a physical sample.)
>
> Agreed. But "sensors" do not necessarily manifest themselves as
> hardware. If I want to detect user activity / inactivity on a
> computer in an experiment, one of my sensors may be a the keyboard,
> another one running processes (not waiting for user input), etc. It
> is very hard to draw the line here. My question: Do I have to have
> this distinction at all? Essentially I convert an X into a Y and Y
> should be usable in a computer. Whether X a is a physical phenomenon
> or not depends on the domain, IMHO.
>
> Sure, that works for me too.  If you make a sensor too general,
> though, it can have components. What do we call those components --
> are not at least some of them sensors?  So now, what is different from
> the sensor that can have sensors, and a device, which has the same
> recursion into smaller devices; and a system, which can have systems
> (and a process, that can have processes)?
>
> I'm being a little silly of course.  All I mean to do is call
> attention to the need to define the terms according to what makes them
> different from each other, not just whether they are higher or lower
> in a hierarchy. I think we haven't done that well enough yet.
>
> So using one definition of sensor ("anything that senses") makes
> Sensor very broad, and other things would subclass to it. (Since
> some devices (a hammer) don't sense things, we'll have to define
> Device narrowly to make it a subclass Sensor.)  Using another
> definition of sensor ("a component that detects (measures) a
> physical phenomenon, converting it into a digital representation
> that can be output to other components"), a Sensor is clearly a
> specific type of Device, and is also a component of any sensing
> device.
>
> If you see software as a Device, I would agree to it, but then again
> Device has the connotation of hardware.
>
> Ah, I said a Sensor was hardware in my original world, so I didn't
> have any problem here -- since my Sensor was hardware and my Device
> had a sensor, I was already on board with Device being hardware.
>
> Do we have a set of definitions by any chance, so we can all use
> these (or some) terms the same way?
>
> I don't think we have.
>
> Why is a Device a subclass of a Process? A Process can use
> Sensors  > which are manifested as Devices to do/measure something,
> IMHO. Again  > this is a quite narrow notion of the concepts.
> I'm not following your argument here.  Yes, a Process can use
> Sensors as you say. So can a Device.  There is no inconsistency
> that I can see.  This suggests a Device is in fact a type of Process.
>
> Sorry, but I don't understand how a Device can be a Process.
>
> The "Process: something that receives an input and produces an output"
> is not a sufficient explanation or model of that?
>
> John
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Manfred
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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 Monday, 21 December 2009 03:33:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 December 2009 03:33:40 GMT