- From: Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:09:25 -0700
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, rob@metalinkage.com.au, jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
- Cc: danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de, armin.haller@anu.edu.au, public-sdw-wg@w3.org, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
- Message-ID: <5786AE05.9070208@ucsb.edu>
> Øwe 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)? > > Of course. But this won’t be in the core. Agreed. On 07/13/2016 01:43 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > > Øwe 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)? > > Of course. But this won’t be in the core. > > *From:*Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 July 2016 4:26 PM > *To:* janowicz@ucsb.edu; Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) > <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com > *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; armin.haller@anu.edu.au; > public-sdw-wg@w3.org; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > *Subject:* 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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] > *Sent:* Wednesday, 13 July 2016 9:10 AM > *To:* Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au> > *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de > <mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>; janowicz@ucsb.edu > <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>; armin.haller@anu.edu.au > <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org > <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu> > > Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/> > > Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net > -- 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
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2016 21:09:57 UTC