Re: Starting the Traffic Event CG

Hi, see below


2014-06-02 23:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>:

> 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.
>
>
>
Ok, I have some contacts in CEN and working groups so definitely I will
contact them in order to avoid future issues.


>
>> 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 ?
>
>

Technically, I'm not sure it's possible to make links directly. The main
model is exported to a XSD (last version:
http://www.datex2.eu/sites/www.datex2.eu/files/DATEXIISchema_2_2_0.xsd),
but this XSD has not URIs or other semantic information so maybe it'd need
some work to be more "usable".


>
>
>  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 ?
>
>
No, it's not. Unlike DATEX II the specification is not open, but, due to is
a very extended technology, its functional details are well known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_message_channel


> 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.



I can prepare something in the following days...

>
>
>
>> - 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.



Perfect, I've just added some tasks and possible deliverables.




>
>
>> - 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)


Indeed!


>
>
>
>> 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 ?
>
>
I see broadcasting applications using Internet and avoiding to use FM, DAB
or other more restricted technologies. Nowadays, a vast majority of people
are connected when they are driving (connected cars are coming but,
meanwhile, to have a smartphone with Internet access inside a car is not a
big deal).

In this case, always following some limitations (e.g. please don't send
real-time CCTV stream using this kind of channel!), the performance or size
is not a problem. I think currently it's possible to process and inference
RDF in a tiny client in an app installed in your Android / IPhone.


>
>
>> 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)
>
>
We'll give it a try.


>
>
>> 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 ;)
>


Yes, the time change is always a problem to arrange this kind of meeting,
maybe the best option is to start to work and wait to get feedback from the
other people of the group.

David


>
>
>
>> 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
>>
>