Re: SOSA core - procedures vs devices

That all makes sense to me,  but still missing something I thin:  a
deployed device has its own spatio-temporal context related, but not the
same as the feature of interest, and a simulation or model will generate
observations. So i am happy with sensor as a general term but we need
something separate to handle the fact that different types have very
different deployment description requirements, and this may require
subclassing to handle in-situ sensors, vs location being part of the
observation, and maybe vs sensors whose location can be calculated (e.g.
satellite in orbit)?






On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 at 15:25 Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I would propose the following:
>
> 1. A Procedure describes the *workflow* used to perform (carry out) the
> act of observing/sensing. The simplified example I used today was
> temperature. One procedure will require to mount a thermometer 2m above
> ground in an area that is neither directly exposed to sun or wind. Another
> procedure will use the very same sensor type (thermometer) but explain how
> to place it within a certain layer of soil. In the first case, the observed
> property is air temperature; in the second case, it is soil temperature.
> Procedures are key to interoperability and the *reproducibility* of
> results. This notion of a procedure aligns well with Gil's work on
> workflows as well as provenance work more broadly. In the SSN-SSO pattern
> we stated that an Observation /satisfies/ a (observation) Procedure and
> that a Sensor /implements/ such Procedure. There are several types
> (subclasses) of Procedure. I can think of at least two: SamplingProcedure
> and ObservationProcedure.While this may sound trivial, please note that a
> single procedure is used to carry out *millions* of observations in the
> same way as one uses the same recipe over and over again to bake a
> chocolate cake.
>
> 2. The act of using a Sensor to arrive at a Result for an ObservedProperty
> of a FeatureOfInterest by receiving some Stimulus is what I would call
> Sensing/Observing (see also
> https://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ssn#Sensing).  IMHO, we do not
> need that level of detail in SOSA-core but certainly in other (vertical  &
> horizontal) modules. The *most* important aspect here is that every single
> use of a sensor creates a new (and unique) Sensing. This is why Procedure
> and Sensing are very different. There are thousands of (popular) procedures
> but billions of sensing acts. Why would one care about the act of sensing?
> One example would be to use it to capture contextual information, e.g.,
> about the weather and its potential impact on a certain observation, other
> observations required to interpret the results, and so on. If I am not
> mistaken, this particular context is also known as ObservationContext.
>
> 3. So what Thing is carrying out this Sensing by following a certain
> Procedure? I believe that we should call this the *Sensor* and very
> explicitly state that humans can be sensors, devices can be sensors,
> simulations can be sensors, and so forth. This leads to the interesting
> question of whether we should subclass sensor and I would propose not to do
> so in SOSA-core. Given that we merely have the expressivity of RDF at our
> disposal, we do not want to end up with statements such as Human subClassOf
> Sensor.  Even more importantly, I would not try to find a better name than
> Sensor. Terms such as Device will exclude humans and simulations and thus
> are too specific. Terms such as System are too broad. Sensors are things
> that perform sensing and humans clearly do so, e.g., with their eyes.
>
> 4. Try to avoid terms such as process and event whenever possible.
>
> What do you think? Does this make sense?
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
>
>
> On 07/12/2016 04:50 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> Yes, but I think we were thinking more that a procedure uses a device,
> during an activity.
>
>
>
> When describing the agents of observation, it depends how close you want
> to look. There are multiple layers of encapsulation. That was probably the
> motivation for bundling them together in SensorML and O&M, but SSN chose to
> be more careful about distinguishing physical devices from workflows –
> which I certainly understand as well.
>
>
>
> The word ‘process’ is overloaded, and in particular is used in
> contradictory ways in BFO and O&M, and SensorML uses it in both ways. So
> now I prefer to avoid it altogether.
>
>
>
> *From:* Joshua Lieberman [mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
> <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 July 2016 9:10 AM
> *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
> *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; janowicz@ucsb.edu;
> armin.haller@anu.edu.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
> *Subject:* Re: SOSA core - procedures vs devices
>
>
>
> Sorry I missed the call today. So a device “runs” (l:n) a procedure in /
> during (1:n) a process?
>
>
>
> —Josh
>
>
>
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:39 PM, <simon.cox@csiro.au>simon.cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
>
>
> I’ve put some notes and a diagram explaining my understanding of the consensus from today’s call here https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SOSA_Ontology#Procedures_vs_Devices
>
>
>
> Note
>
> 1.      I have adjusted the names of the classes to avoid ambiguity between the re-usable things and the events when they are used
>
> 2.      I have not yet implemented this in SOSA-Core – its just a proposal for now.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
> Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
> Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>