- From: Alex Robin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 14:38:05 +0000
- To: public-sdwig@w3.org
@KathiSchleidt * _Regarding drone platforms:_ No we don't hide on-board sensors. Sensors are sub-components of the platform system in any case. But `Platforms` (not only drone platforms by the way) also have datasheets (or more generally, characteristics, capabilities, etc.) on their own. As per our discussions, datasheets are modeled using the `Procedure` class in the case of `Sensors`, hence the idea that `Platforms` can also implement `Procedures`. Datasheets are just one example of procedures, but I can also see more abstract procedures like types of missions, etc. being applicable to platforms. * _Regarding persons acting as platforms:_ IMO Persons can act as observers or as platforms and we model both differently. If the person is holding a phone to take pictures, the person is the `Platform` and the phone the `Sensor`/`Observer`. If the person is making observations directly (e.g. writing what bird he/she observed in a certain area), then the person is really the `Observer`. Wouldn't a survey campaign be better modeled as a `Deployment`? That said, I understand that the desire in OMS may be that a `Host` is purely "carrying" `Observers`. That's why I also suggested to keep `Host` more general and make `Platform` a specific kind of `Host`. In the current proposal, this leads to `Platform` being both a `Host` and a `System`. Does it make sense? -- GitHub Notification of comment by alexrobin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/sdw/issues/1411#issuecomment-1551524123 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 17 May 2023 14:38:07 UTC