Re: Dataset Exchange Working Group UCR

Dear Karen,

Allow me to introduce ISO 15926, because I think there are some 
developments in it that may be of interest to you.

First I'll show you how the various parts of ISO 15926 fit together.

When, in 1991, we started with what is now ISO 15926, we did that 
because of the problem that everybody in the process industries has: how 
to exchange information without endless and error prone mapping.

In this industry most parties have rather "promiscuous" relations with 
each other. Fluor Corporation, in which I worked for 38 years, has some 
2000 projects going at any point in time, ranging from very small (a 
one-man advice) to very large (billions of dollars). These are for many 
different owner/operators, in different countries, with, on very large 
projects, joint venture partners, and some 400 suppliers and subcontractors.

All these parties have their own software with their own naming 
conventions, shortcuts, and logic. Even if they use the same software 
they have configured it differently to suit their work methods and 
procedures.

That is why we have designed a generic Upper Ontology (ISO 15926-2, see 
here <http://15926.org/topics/data-model/index.htm>), a Reference Data 
Library (see, for example, here <http://data.15926.org/rdl/RDS327239>) 
containing standardized instances of the ISO 15926-2 model, and in Part 
7 templates <http://15926.org/15926_template_specs.php> that are 
constructs based on ISO 15926-2 and RDL classes. I guess that those 
templates are close to what you call 'datasets'.

To get a good feel of what Parts 7/8 entail please visit, as an example, 
http://15926.org/topics/mapping-line-list/index.htm

This means that we want to map and validate data that are produced by 
whatever application, used during the life of a facility, (and that 
means hundreds of applications!) _*at the source*_.

Those applications in most cases require information that was produced 
elsewhere (example: an app to size a pump by Mechanical Engineers 
requires process data produced by the Process Dept.).

Since ISO 15926 and its implementation methods guarantee integration of 
all life-cycle information, one can launch a SPARQL query in order to 
fetch the required up-to-date information.

Validation of the mappings is done following Part 10 (in development), 
using the new W3C SHACL <https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/> Recommendation. 
A, yet inaccurate, description of our (work-in-progress) SHACL 
implementation can be found here <http://15926.org/topics/SHACL/index.htm>.

Finally, the question is why anybody would like to store the entire 
history of his plant, from conceptual design through engineering, 
construction, testing, commissioning, operations (including thousands of 
24/7 measurements over time frames of decades) and maintenance. 
Predictably it will become a treasure trove of knowledge about the 
plant, plant components, and processes.

In order to do such analysis the right hand top of above diagram shows 
that one can decide what the domain of discourse of analysis is, design 
a set of SPARQL queries to fetch all the necessary information, map this 
to OWL, and conduct reasoning sessions.

Needless to say that the above is a grand scheme. We spent a mere 
quarter of a century to get where we are, and are confident that in some 
years we will be able to roll out the first implementations.

Please note that ISO 15926 is NOT for application building, due to its 
generic (5NF) character such apps would run like a brick. ISO 15926 is 
for data management only:

and for an entire plant that can be pictured like this:



Finally this: in our industry the semantic preciseness of the exchanged 
information is of utmost importance due to the risks of lawsuits. That 
is why we had to approach the above with rigor.

I hope this synopsis was of some use to you.

Regards,
Hans
15926.org <http://15926.org>

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

On 6-2-2018 18:05, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Note: This W3C working group will publish guidelines for application
> profiles. Use cases and requirements for this deliverable include
> interaction with, and possibly use of, validation languages.
>
> *** Please forward to potentially interested groups and individuals ***
>
> Hello,
>
> The Dataset Exchange Working Group (DXWG) [1] is pleased to announce the
> publication of the First Public Working Draft of the Dataset Exchange
> Use Cases and Requirements.[2]
>
> The working group will produce a second version of the Data Catalog
> (DCAT) Vocabulary [3], guidance for the creation of application
> profiles, and content negotiation based on those profiles. The Use Cases
> and Requirements cover all three deliverables.
>
> This document is the outcome of collaborative effort from the Working
> Group. We want to hear your comments on the document as it will guide
> the group in the three work areas. Please send any comments to the
> comments list [4].
>
> All feedback is welcome and will receive a response from the group. We
> look forward to hearing from you!
>
> The W3C Dataset Exchange Working Group
>
> --------
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2017/dxwg/wiki/Main_Page
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/dcat-ucr/
> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
> [4] mailto:public-dxwg-comments@w3.org
>
>



---
Deze e-mail is gecontroleerd op virussen door AVG.
http://www.avg.com