Re: Starting the Traffic Event CG

Hello Daniel,

I will try to give a short description about the organisation of all
matters related to DATEX II. Easyway was a european research project (I
said "was" because it ended some months ago and now they are reorganising
their groups) promoted by the EC. Their main task was to develop specs
(including methodology, models, documents, xsd, applications, examples,
etc.) and provide these specs to the WG8, dependent group of CEN (TC278,
ITS standardisation) to be normalised as Technical Specification.

The current roadmap of normalisation is:

- Part 1: Modelling methodology: normalised (2011).
- Part 2: Location referencing: normalised (2011)
- Part 3: Traffic information: normalised (2011).
- Part 4: Variable Message Settings: normalised (2013)
- Part 5: Measured and Elaborated Data: normalised (2014).
- Part 6: Parking information: ongoing (probably 2015).

Regarding your concerns about the IRP, of course it must be considered. As
far as I know, the only process you have to fulfill in order to work with
DATEX II is to download and use it. Anyway, I still believe a formal
request for permission is always a good practice.

With "good starting point" I meant it could be taken as reference. The
scope... I think it has to be defined. As long as the group is named
"traffic ontology", I suppose the best option should be to define the
domain of traffic widely and not to constraint to a one only subfield. My
proposal would be to use a top-down approach, with these phases:

- Define a general traffic domain, including a minimal set of information
about a traffic incident: ID, Date, General type, location, urgency and
level of service. This information is more or less the same information
that RDS-TMC (ISO 14189) supports (one of the main objectives of RDS-TMC
was precisely to deliver the necessary information to users to be aware of
a traffic situation in their route).

- Describe a list of traffic subdomains (Accident, Roadworks, Management,
etc.) and a set of reusable domains (Vehicle classifications, data quality
description, etc.), which could be used for the rest.

- In several subgroups, work in each subdomain separately, relating it to
the main traffic domain.

This top-down approach would have the advantage that you get a final
version very early. This allows to start to build frameworks, application
tools, etc. For example, it could be possible to set a complete
broadcasting system, from data sources to users.

About deliverables, examining the websites of other well-know ontologies,
there are always: textual documentation, modelling graphs (UML, graph build
with Protégé, etc.), resources (including the ontology, using OWL), use
cases and examples). I'm comfortable with UML in general, but tools like
Protégé have been designed to develop ontologies and they have some
interesting tools integrated (graphical builder, reasoner, OWL profile
calculator, etc.).

Finally, I have no problem being volunteer performing, for example, some
steering or technical tasks. Always with the limitation of the time, a few
hours per week is ok for me, as you pointed.

I hope I have answered all your questions.

Regards,
David

2014-05-31 13:46 GMT+02:00 Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>:

> Hello David
>
> Thanks for the new pointers, it's important to be knowledgeable of this
> work which seems well advanced and implemented. I need to better understand
> what are CEN's and the EC roles in these standards, as there may be
> political aspects to be considered. IPR is one potential source of concerns
> when someone starts a new standard from some existing standard.
>
> A few comments.
>
> First, on the logistics side, as I explained before, what this CG
> (Community Group) needs is a couple of volunteers willing to act as
> co-chair, editors, organizing teleconf, tracking progress, reporting, etc.
> That is, ready to spend a few hours per week on it at a minimum.
>
> If some folks are willing to try, I'm willing to spend some time
> explaining how this group mgnt is done at W3C, e.g. live on the phone.
>
> On the technical side, I need to look more closely at the DATEX II XML
> schema
>    http://www.datex2.eu/content/xml-schema
> but I already see it includes a full descriptor for Accident, with
> Vehicle, person, roadtype, etc. And that it's only a tiny portion of the
> whole semantics provided by DATEX.
>
> What do you have in mind when you say "good starting point" ? Only the
> Accident part ?
>
> What would be your ideal deliverable(s) for this CG BTW ? Both in terms of
> scope (just accident, or traffic in general) and choice of design formalism
> (tree, graph, oo, xml, etc).
>
> I've been pushing for describing Web ontologies in RDF/OWL or some
> equivalent high level graph oriented framework from the start, but some
> people were happy with XML as a starting point for instance. There is no
> obligation from the W3C point of view to choose one or the other. My
> concerns with starting with XML is that in practice, XML users tend to
> recreate their own adhoc framework to simulate multiple inheritance, or
> other logical or graph-like features already present (and standardized) in
> a richer language (such as OWL). My only constraint is that I don't want to
> have to learn this sort of XML-improved layer. On the other hand, I'll
> happily invest time in learning a graphical-oriented ontology editor kind
> of tool.
>
> In any case, scoping should be our first task. My preference goes to a
> limited scoping: road accident in their context (geo/date, vehicle, driver
> condition, road type, etc). And try to think graph out of the box.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2014-05-29 17:03, David Torres wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> My name is David Torres, I work as Technical Consultant at University
>> of Valencia (Spain). There is an emerging interest in Spain on Linked
>> Open Data matters and I was looking for a standard ontology based on
>> Traffic Information. The only group I've found is this one and I've
>> just joined, but it seems is quite "idle"...
>>
>> I'm a kind of expert in DATEX II, a traffic model promoted in Europe
>> to be the standard to use to exchange all kind of information related
>> to traffic data. I think it could be a good starting point. The PSM
>> (Platform Specific Model) is based in XML.
>>
>> Description: DATEX II (ISO 16157)
>> Relevance: all kind of incident, accident, traffic data, parking
>> information, CCTV, VMS, etc. It supports the use of extensions.
>> Link: http://www.datex2.eu/ [1]
>>
>> Date: Current
>> Status: In operation
>> Language: English
>> Dataset: Many (in Europe) http://www.datex2.eu/datex-node [2]
>>
>>
>> PS: As long as I can see this mail list is frozen I'd like to get
>> feedback about your interest by working on this new traffic ontology.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://www.webkb.org/kb/nit/accidentOntology.html
>> [2] http://www.datex2.eu/datex-node
>>
>
>
>