Re: SSN Key Ontologies Reference List - Inputs

Laurent,

Hopefully you can be on the call today, but if not, here is an update  
of actions from your emails.

1)  We do not have Avancha2004, Jurdak2004, IEEE1451, Cybenko2003, or  
maybe Liu2005 in our list.  I think "someone" should look them up and  
decide whether to add them. (I have not had time to do so.)  I *think*  
we have the other ones (more doubt here).

2) I have included your criteria in the list.

3) Very cool. Re OIML/adding to "list of reviewed examples", if you  
mean the ontology list, I would say no.  The OIML stuff is much more  
vocabulary in nature, and will be a great addition to the "vocabulary  
concepts we will consider including" list.

4) I will include your comments in the Discussion section for each  
ontology. Thank you very much for these.

5) None of these references seemed to rise directly to the level of  
the others in our ontology list, but I am open to being wrong on that  
point. The metadata management paper will definitely be useful for the  
vocabulary concepts list.  I can't answer your embedded question.

Thanks again,

John

On Jun 30, 2009, at 5:59 AM, <Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au> <Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au 
 > wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I won’t attend today’s meeting (it’s time to go home) but John’s  
> call prompted me to post a few comments here to fire up the  
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
> 1) A reminder of a similar effort
>
> D.2.1 State of the Art - Sensor Information Services
> http://www.ict-sensei.org/images/Documents/sensei_wp2_d2.1.pdf
>
> page 13: 2.1.2 Ontologies for modelling sensor and actuator
>
> Avancha2004
>
> Jurdak2004
>
> Eid2006
>
> IEEE1451
>
> Niles2001 (SUMO)
>
> Russomanno2005
>
> OGC2007 (SensorML)
>
> Cybenko2003
>
> Liu2005
>
>
>
> 2) On the list of criteria to be used for the evaluation template:
>
>
>
> It’s roughly okay but I have a few pet topics like:
>
> - systematic presence of textual descriptions or not (because it’s  
> impossible to get them later)
>
> - traceability to references or not (there are some ontologies, not  
> many, which do provide the references to the relevant journal  
> articles or technical spec.)
>
> - presence of a significant number of examples or not
>
>
>
>
>
> 3) I have started a list of all the resources describing sensor and  
> instruments in general here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Sensor_types
>
>
>
> On top of this list I have put the work by OIML: International  
> Organization of Legal Metrology for two reasons:
>
> -          they propose an ontology skeleton in http://www.oiml.org/publications/V/V002-200-e07.pdf
>
> -          they have collected useful stuff on a wide range of  
> sensors/instruments http://www.oiml.org/publications/
>
>
>
> Should it be added the list of reviewed examples?
>
>
>
> 4) On the shortlisted ones, here are a few rapid comments
>
>
>
> CSIRO’s one:
>
> - a bit to OWL-S-ish although I agree there is a need for some  
> harmonisation around it..
>
> - it’s also a bit too abstract. Let’s start to think on how we can  
> apply it to real examples of sensors (see point 2).
>
>
>
> M Eid et al:
>
> - another one which uses IEEE 1451 http://ieee1451.nist.gov/
>
>
>
> OntoSensor:
>
> See my more complete comments here: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/OntoSensor_Review
>
> (some practical examples maybe worth saving?)
>
>
>
> MMI Device:
>
> - it’s half a product/device ontology and half a “metrology” one (It  
> would be good to compare it to OIML – see my comments above)
>
>
>
> SensorML process:
>
> - I can help with the events vs. process discussion we’ll have to  
> have at some stage. I’ve read my classic (e.g. Galton)
>
>
>
> CESN:
>
> - too small to count
>
>
>
> OOSThetys:
>
> - Remind me of something similar I’ve got also inspired by Simon  
> Cox’s O&M. Useful for discussion about the ontology (foundry or  
> skeleton) structure.
>
>
>
> WISNO:
>
> - more agent-ish (and driven by situation awareness requirements)  
> than purely sensor-ish - except the importation of  IEEE 1451 defs.
>
>
>
>
>
> 5) Finally, what’s missing in the list?
>
>
>
> Maybe work done for imagery sensors (e.g. ISO 1930 or a more  
> specific source taken from the reference below)
>
>
>
> Wolfgang Kresse (2008) STANDARDIZATION IN PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND REMOTE  
> SENSING  Beijing 2008
> http://www.isprs.org/congresses/beijing2008/proceedings/4_pdf/307.pdf
>
>
>
> Also other work on “virtual” or “macro” sensors descriptions like  
> what this swiss group may have done (BTW, have I missed a more  
> recent publication on the structure of their metadata?):
>
>
>
> Nicolas Dawes, K. Ashwin Kumar, Sebastian Michel, Karl Aberer,  
> Michael Lehning. Sensor Metadata Management and its Application in  
> Collaborative Environmental Research. 4th IEEE International  
> Conference on e-Science. e-Science 2008. Indianapolis, IN, USA. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?isnumber=4736722&arnumber=4736751&count=180&index=28
>
>
>
>
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Laurent
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


John

--------------
John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org