W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > July 2016

Re: SOSA core - procedures vs devices

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:23 UTC