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: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 21:08:34 -0700
To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, armin.haller@anu.edu.au, jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
Cc: danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de, public-sdw-wg@w3.org, kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au
Message-ID: <578DA7C2.2050505@ucsb.edu>
Hi Simon,

Fine with me. So how do we call the things that carry sensors and that 
are not restricted to man-made (physical) devices? Examples would be 
humans and their senses, drones with GPS and camera sensors, and so 
forth. We need a neutral term. Carrier?

Jano


On 07/18/2016 09:01 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>
> I would suggest that a Platform is also a Device, but which only hosts 
> other devices.
>
> A Platform could host any or all of Sensors (Sensing-devices) or 
> Observers , Actuators, or Sampling-devices.
>
> Simon
>
> *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
> *Sent:* Saturday, 16 July 2016 12:49 AM
> *To:* Armin Haller <armin.haller@anu.edu.au>; Cox, Simon (L&W, 
> Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>; jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com
> *Cc:* danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de; public-sdw-wg@w3.org; Kerry Taylor 
> <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
> *Subject:* Re: SOSA core - procedures vs devices
>
> Hi Amin,
>
> I agree. However, I think you mean Instrument or SensorPlatform, i.e., 
> the physical object on which one or more sensors are mounted. I agree 
> that we should have this in SOSA core but not via subclassing Sensor. 
> This seems to be about /mereotopology/, not subsumption, i.e., a 
> Sensor is part of a Platform or mounted on  Platform but the Platform 
> is not a specific kind of Sensor.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Krzysztof
>
> On 07/14/2016 07:28 PM, Armin Haller wrote:
>
>     Agree with all of the points Krzysztof makes here and that
>     represents the intention of the SANDA core proposed on Webprotege,
>     noting that some rdfs:comments were misleading.
>
>     I can live with **Sensor** as a name for the Thing that carries
>     out the procedure. I do believe, though, that we need a
>     *SensingDevice* in the core, which then could be a subclass of
>     *Sensor * or if we decide differently in the richer outer layers
>     just a class on its own, but there would be a relation as proposed
>     in the SANDA core *usedDevice* that relates the Senor to the
>     SensingDevice.**I believe we need this, because most
>     observing/sensing/actuating being described with our lightweight
>     newly proposed core will be done by smartphones. When you post for
>     example location information in any social media platform, this
>     hopefully will be annotated by tools with our core ontology. The
>     SensingDevice will probably only have a label “Samsung Galaxy S7”,
>     the “Sensing Act” would be the geolocation information, while the
>     SensingDevice itself can have different contextual information as
>     Rob was requesting. But they can be described using other
>     vocabularies and/or our outer layers if needed. I would not
>     introduce the concept of Human in the core. I would see Human
>     observations as something where you will use our richer outer cores.
>
>     *From: *Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>     <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>     *Reply-To: *"janowicz@ucsb.edu" <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>     <janowicz@ucsb.edu> <mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, 13 July 2016 3:25 pm
>     *To: *"Simon.Cox@csiro.au" <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
>     <Simon.Cox@csiro.au> <mailto:Simon.Cox@csiro.au>,
>     "jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com"
>     <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
>     <jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com> <mailto:jlieberman@tumblingwalls.com>
>     *Cc: *"danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de"
>     <mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de> <danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>
>     <mailto:danh.lephuoc@tu-berlin.de>, Armin Haller
>     <armin.haller@anu.edu.au> <mailto:armin.haller@anu.edu.au>,
>     "public-sdw-wg@w3.org" <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>     <public-sdw-wg@w3.org> <mailto:public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Kerry Taylor
>     <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au> <mailto:kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>
>     *Subject: *Re: SOSA core - procedures vs devices
>
>     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 <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 Tuesday, 19 July 2016 04:09:10 UTC

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