Re: Starting the Traffic Event CG

Hello David, all

see below

On 2014-06-02 11:15, David Torres wrote:
> 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.

There are (at least) two different things to consider. First there is 
the permission to point at and download the DATEX spec (for free, 
usually not the case for CEN/ISO, etc, but seems fine here), so to use 
it, e.g. as a reference or to implement something based on it, without 
having to pay some royalty to the IPR owners of the semantics behind the 
names in the spec (to be checked, but being funded through EC funding, 
it's got to be RF).

Then there is the right to do derivative work, that is, to take pieces 
and bits, e.g. an enum here, a type construct there, and to define 
something new, which doesn't need the original work anymore. Usually 
it's not ok to do that for de-jure spec like from ISO, or an ESO like 
CEN. In a CG, we do pre-standardization, so it's usually OK to 
experiment, but if we expect a potential take up in a "real" W3C working 
group later on, we better check this one.

> 
> With "good starting point" I meant it could be taken as reference. The

Is it even possible to link to a DATEX type or enum if we plan to 
reformalize their tree schema model in terms of graph/ontologies ? We're 
bound to cut&paste the strings no ? Could we just point at the 
definitions then ?



> 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).

Is this specification freely available ?

I'd really like to see an example of definition of a generic traffic 
event using on ontology language of some kind, e.g. OWL, and referencing 
this ISO work, to understand what dependencies/extensions are present.

> 
> - 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.

Sounds good. We can use a wiki to share our ideas. I just created a page 
for our CG: 
https://www.w3.org/community/traffic/wiki/Main_Page#Draft_Plan
Feel free to add there, remove, or create new pages, etc.
You should have the rights for editing.


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

I suppose we'll have to prioritize the subgroup deliverables, as it's 
likely we'll have to work in series rather than in parallel (unless lots 
of volunteers show up suddenly)

> 
> 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.

Does broadcasting (e.g. using the FM band) bring requirements on 
performance ? size, etc ?


> 
> 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.).

I'll use whatever tool I can install on Windows.
Best would be a webapp tools though (e.g. webprotegé)

> 
> 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.

Thanks for that.

I think we should start with a teleconf, or just a call with a couple of 
other potential lead/chairs for the group.

Last time I attempted to organize a call, I failed finding a proper 
teleconferencing tool usable by all participants.
(we have one at W3C, but not available to CG/the general public)

But we can start by designing datatypes through the wiki too, it's more 
fun ;)


> 
> 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 [4]
>> 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] [1]
>>> 
>>> Date: Current
>>> Status: In operation
>>> Language: English
>>> Dataset: Many (in Europe) http://www.datex2.eu/datex-node [2] [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 [3]
>>> [2] http://www.datex2.eu/datex-node [2]
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.datex2.eu/
> [2] http://www.datex2.eu/datex-node
> [3] http://www.webkb.org/kb/nit/accidentOntology.html
> [4] http://www.datex2.eu/content/xml-schema

Received on Monday, 2 June 2014 21:17:03 UTC