Re: operating and survival conditions

Notes inline below


On 15/07/2010, at 5:42 , p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk wrote:

> The Operational/survival model seems to better structured now. By  
> having One supercalass you mean a class like OperationModel and then  
> two sub-classes as SurvivalRange and OperatingRange?
>
> I looked up some commercial sensor factsheets and tried to see how  
> many of their attributes can be specified with the current operation  
> model; it seems most of the common attributes could be defined under  
> existing classes in the model. There were also attributes such as:
>
> - electromagnetic interference (EMI) range, salt water and solvents  
> effect, Chemical resistance (which I think will be under  
> environmental survival range)
>


Yes, I think things like chemical resistance are about environmental  
survivability.  Come to think of it though, we have shock, should that  
just live in environmental survivability?  It's a measurable quality  
about the environment of the sensor - is it any different to pressure  
(for underwater devices), or temperature, etc?



> - Calibration cycle (which could be an attribute in Maintanance  
> schedule)

That sounds about right, if by calibration cycle it's meant how often  
the device needs to be recalibrated, which does sound like maintenance  
to me.

>
> and: Response time, Repeatability (which are probably a part of  
> Quality of Information attributes?)
>


hmmm, we did have response time at one stage in one of the preliminary  
diagrams, but it seems to have disappeared.  Probably worth putting  
back in.  I think the International vocabulary of metrology (http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2008.pdf 
) has (many, many, ...) terms including a few that we could  
incorporate.  It has response time, drift, callibration, etc. and  
repeatability;  however, we should probably include just the most  
common/important (we already have accuracy, resolution, etc) and just  
leave that as the reference for term definitions if others want to  
extend the ontology to include some of the less common terms.

Michael





>
> Regards,
> Payam
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Michael Compton [Michael.Compton@csiro.au]
> Sent: 12 July 2010 07:00
> To: Barnaghi P Dr (Electronic Eng)
> Cc: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
> Subject: Re: operating and survival conditions
>
> Yes, they aren't linked.  I wasn't sure that there was anything to
> say.  If we are to just have the same name for all the roles in that
> diagram, then there doesn't seem to be any restriction to add that
> links things.
>
> I had a look at restructuring things a little.  I put up an extra
> diagram and some text on the wiki page
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Operating_Model
>
> We could put things together under a single superclass as we did in
> the modelling of accuracy and then constrain the condition based on
> that?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On 06/07/2010, at 20:30 , p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Regarding the first point, when I browsed the ontology some of
>> classes related to operational and survival conditions are not
>> mapped to any concept. The classes are defined but no link between
>> the concepts and other parts of the ontology is defined.
>>
>> On the second point, I agree; we should stick to modelling sensors.
>> What I described as a "Role" is related to a sensor node platform.
>> We focus on sensors rather than sensor nodes or communication
>> network or deployment platforms.
>>
>>
>> - Payam
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Compton [mailto:Michael.Compton@csiro.au]
>> Sent: 05 July 2010 05:58
>> To: Barnaghi P Dr (Electronic Eng)
>> Cc: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: operating and survival conditions
>>
>> Firstly, sorry for the slow reply - I've been on holidays.
>>
>> I don't quite understand the first point.  Could you explain more
>> fully.
>>
>> On the second point, it seems to me hard to define a line that  
>> clearly
>> marks out "sensor only" (or predominantly sensor specific) from the
>> myriad of other properties related the sensors and devices.  My
>> feeling is that for the XG's ontology we should stick as closely as
>> possible to things that are only relevant to sensors or things  
>> where a
>> sensor ontology is a very likely place for it to be defined.
>> Admittedly, such a thing is hard to get right and we have already
>> considered non sensor only things, like the operating and survival
>> conditions, which could apply to any device, but it's mostly/often
>> sensors that get placed in those conditions, and these are things  
>> that
>> are often the concern of sensors, so it seems reasonable to define it
>> ourselves rather than rely on other ontologies.
>>
>> For things like acting as a router or storage hub, it seems to me  
>> that
>> these are more broadly applicable network and concepts and, hence, it
>> seems less appropriate to define them in a sensor ontology.  Does  
>> that
>> make some sense?  Does anyone agree?  And of course are there other
>> things we should include in this area?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/06/2010, at 23:49 , p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> In SensorBasis_withSurvivalAndOperationalRange OWL file, it seems
>>> some of the classes like StorageCapacity, OperatingRange have no
>>> defined property.
>>>
>>> Also another question, in protocols like ZigBee there is a
>>> possibility to define a sensor node as a Router in a wireless sensor
>>> network, or a sensor node could be used as a storage hub for
>>> replicating the data in some WSN designs. Do you think we should add
>>> theses type of attributes to the model?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Payam
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org
>>> ] On Behalf Of Michael.Compton@csiro.au
>>> Sent: 22 June 2010 14:00
>>> To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
>>> Subject: operating and survival conditions
>>>
>>> I've marked up Payam's suggestion for operating and survival
>>> conditions into an OWL file (as an extension of the current version
>>> of the ontology).  See http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Operating_Model
>>>
>>> I hope I've interpreted it properly.  All comments welcome - Payam,
>>> if you see anything amiss let me know.
>>>
>>> On the same page is an example that encodes the operating and
>>> survival conditions for a sensor.
>>>
>>> Both files are attached here.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>

Received on Monday, 19 July 2010 01:26:41 UTC