- From: <Laurent.Lefort@csiro.au>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:59:01 +1000
- To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B484B32EAEABE14AA5409575229CECF3A6625F9439@EXNSW-MBX05.nexus.csiro.au>
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
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 13:18:27 UTC