Re: Starting the Traffic Event CG

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

Received on Saturday, 31 May 2014 11:47:05 UTC