- From: Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:38:43 +0200
- To: <bermudez@sura.org>
- Cc: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <9FAFB341E897445EA429530BD65B4E42@H07.jrc.it>
Luis Right - (i) you reach out into the other standards better to show more of the total graph, and (ii) you suppress some of the distracting detail. Of course this could all be done using the UML tool, providing the SensorML and SWE Common models are complete (yes for the latter, no for the former, but that could be fixed non-normatively quite easily. I strongly suggest it is best to stick with one of the the two formal notations that we are already using - i.e. either UML class diagram (just requires some attention to making the diagram pretty) or OWL/RDF (with some automatic visualization) - rather than invent a new notation, the meaning of which is either unclear or has to be laboriously explained. With UML I could probably do what is necessary in a few minutes, starting with the original model. The advantage of going to OWL/RDF is (a) it is likely to be more acceptable to the target audience, (b) it would help with the important meta-project, to produce a lossless ISO-UML-->OWL rule. Simon -------------------------------------------------------- Simon Cox European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox SDI Unit: <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ IES Institute: <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ JRC: <http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ -------------------------------------------------------- _____ From: bermud@gmail.com [mailto:bermud@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luis Bermudez Sent: Friday, 14 August 2009 16:55 To: Simon Cox Cc: John Graybeal; Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au; Michael.Compton@csiro.au; Wan-Ju.K.Gann@boeing.com; ocorcho@fi.upm.es; rgarcia@fi.upm.es; krp@ecs.soton.ac.uk; janowicz@uni-muenster.de; arthur.herzog@igd-extern.fraunhofer.de; Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au Subject: Re: Discussion about Observation/Phenomenon structure in the SSN Ontology Hi Simon, You are right. But, this figure is easier to to understand. It not only explains O&M in a very simple way but the relation to SWE and the relation to sensor and platforms, which most of the times confuses a lot folks. Also it was created at the time where there were non UML models for SensorML nor SweCommon, not sure if we already have those. I am going to add more links to point to the original documents and yes is in my todos to make a formal publication about it. I was thinking this journal: http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/computer+ <http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences/computer+&+mathematical+applications /journal/12145> &+mathematical+applications/journal/12145 -luis On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Simon Cox <simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> wrote: The UML diagram is clipped from the OGC document. Its not just another interpretation, it is the model. Since the OGC document is only available as PDF, I prepared this web-page to allow easier linking. It also contains more pedagogical materials than the OGC document, which is a spec and therefore deliberately terse. (1. repetition, while good for pedagogical purposes, is a catastrophe in a tech spec - more than one description of the same thing creates ambiguity! 2. more room for more elaborate examples ... I guess I should turn this into a more formal publication, but couldn't figure out where. It doesn't fit the criteria for most peer-reviewed conventional publications. Any suggestions?) Simon Cox European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox SDI Unit: <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ IES Institute: <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ _____ From: John Graybeal [mailto:jbgraybeal@mindspring.com] Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 09:16 To: Simon Cox Cc: bermudez@sura.org; Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au; Michael.Compton@csiro.au; Wan-Ju.K.Gann@boeing.com; ocorcho@fi.upm.es; rgarcia@fi.upm.es; krp@ecs.soton.ac.uk; janowicz@uni-muenster.de; arthur.herzog@igd-extern.fraunhofer.de; Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au Subject: Re: Discussion about Observation/Phenomenon structure in the SSN Ontology I love this reference and document -- but how is it "the original UML"? It isn't on the OGC site, and all the explanatory text is not in an OGC document. And it says "It (the model) is summarized in the following UML class diagram." Which is what the other diagram says too. So I'd say it's another interpretation, though a much more detailed one. That said, I'm delighted to refer to it, as it neatly answers a lot of the questions I had. And it has many definitions! I'd urge folks to read it -- and perhaps to adopt the same terminology (e.g., 'feature-of-interest') if we mean these same concepts. If we mean a different concept, it is incumbent upon us to define exactly what we mean instead. It prompts one question: As far as I know, we are not dealing with sampling devices or systems, only sensors that report data. Correct? John On Aug 12, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Simon Cox wrote: However, why rely on a secondary interpretation when you could go back to the original UML - e.g. https://www.seegrid.csiro.au/twiki/bin/view/AppSchemas/ObservationsAndSampli ng#Observation_Model ^?^ Simon Cox European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Spatial Data Infrastructures Unit, TP 262 Via E. Fermi, 2749, I-21027 Ispra (VA), Italy Tel: +39 0332 78 3652 Fax: +39 0332 78 6325 <mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu> mailto:simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/simon-cox SDI Unit: <http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://sdi.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ IES Institute: <http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/> http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ JRC: http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ _____ From: bermud@gmail.com [mailto:bermud@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Luis Bermudez Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 02:52 To: Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au Cc: Michael.Compton@csiro.au; jbgraybeal@mindspring.com; Wan-Ju.K.Gann@boeing.com; ocorcho@fi.upm.es; rgarcia@fi.upm.es; krp@ecs.soton.ac.uk; janowicz@uni-muenster.de; arthur.herzog@igd-extern.fraunhofer.de; Kerry.Taylor@csiro.au; simon.cox@jrc.ec.europa.eu Subject: Re: Discussion about Observation/Phenomenon structure in the SSN Ontology Dear Holger et. al., I think this figure: http://www.oostethys.org/best-practices/observation summarizes O&M pretty well. The main components are: Observation Feature Property Procedure Results -luis On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 7:36 PM, <Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au> wrote: Hi all, In picking up today's discussion on the potential observation/data structure in the ontology, I dare to summarise that there is some agreement on the need for some sort of data/observation representation in the ontology. So, the question is which concepts to include. So far, we have * Observation * Feature * PhysicalQuality * Platform * Location * UnitOfMeasurement to represent data/observation. How do we need to arrange these, change/add/delete to 1) reflect OGC O&M and 2) enable linkage to a separate observation ontology? Comments/suggestions/solutions are welcome. Cheers, Holger Dr. Holger Neuhaus Post-Doctoral Research Fellow Tasmanian ICT Centre CSIROw Phone: +61 3 6232 5547 | Fax: +61 3 6232 5000 <mailto:holger.neuhaus@csiro.au> holger.neuhaus@csiro.au | <http://www.csiro.au> www.csiro.au | <http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/> Semantic Sensor Networks Address: GPO Box 1538, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia The Tasmanian ICT Centre is jointly funded by the Australian Government through the Intelligent Island Program and CSIRO. The Intelligent Island Program is administered by the Tasmanian Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts. PLEASE NOTE The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -- Luis Bermudez Ph.D. Coastal Research Technical Manager Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) bermudez@sura.org - Office: (202) 408-8211 1201 New York Ave. NW Suite 430, Washington DC 20005 John Graybeal jbgraybeal@mindspring.com -------------- NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS -------------- John Graybeal <mailto:jbgraybeal@mindspring.com> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org John Graybeal jbgraybeal@mindspring.com -- Luis Bermudez Ph.D. Coastal Research Technical Manager Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) bermudez@sura.org - Office: (202) 408-8211 1201 New York Ave. NW Suite 430, Washington DC 20005
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 15:39:43 UTC