Re: another relevant bit of ontology

OK, I think that one explicitly addressed the fact they were drawing  
inferences about the reasons the data has problems.  For example, "In  
this section, we explore how our reasoning system can evaluate these  
data to signal the plausibility of several hypotheses to explain their  
correlations." (p.7)

I assume inference over observational data fits into the scope of the  
project... In my naive world, I assume any reasoning over any  
information associated with sensors fits into the project.  If the  
project is to semantically describe sensors, how would you constrain  
what kinds of reasoning we mean to support?

John


On May 26, 2009, at 7:55 AM, Cory Henson wrote:

> Sorry for confusion, I was referring to the paper you sent to start  
> this thread.
>
> [1] http://efg.cs.umb.edu/pubs/SensorDataReasoning.pdf
>
> -Cory
>
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:50 AM, John Graybeal <graybeal@mbari.org>  
> wrote:
> Cory,
>
> Please clarify which link you mean by "this paper"?  Thanks.
>
> John
>
>
> On May 26, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Cory Henson wrote:
>
>> The paper seems to be discussing deductive rule-based reasoning  
>> with sensor data. While this is definitely useful for certain tasks  
>> (i.e., checking constraints and data validity) it may be  
>> insufficient for other purposes such as interpretation and  
>> explanation of sensor data. For example, the rule on page 5 says  
>> that if the temperature is less than zero Celsius then it must be  
>> winter.  But, is it winter because it is cold, or is it cold  
>> because it is winter? Or is it cold because the sensor is in a  
>> freezer? Interpretation of observations seems more like an  
>> abductive task, where there are often multiple hypothetical  
>> explanations for a set of sensor data. Just a suggestion in case  
>> inference over observation data fits into the scope of this  
>> project.  For reference please see: http://knoesis.wright.edu/library/resource.php?id=00595
>>
>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Oscar Corcho <ocorcho@fi.upm.es>  
>> wrote:
>> I tend to agree with Amit. Anyway, probably Víctor was not referring
>> necessarily to DL reasoning, but also to some RDF inferencing.
>>
>> Oscar
>>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn- 
>> request@w3.org] En
>> nombre de Amit P. Sheth
>> Enviado el: martes, 26 de mayo de 2009 14:23
>> Para: Victor Manuel Pelaez Martinez
>> CC: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
>> Asunto: Re: another relevant bit of ontology
>>
>> I would argue that DL inferencing is not the only or even primary  
>> way to
>> exploit semantics. We have had lits of debate in the community
>> and we generally agree that SW's benefits not only machine processing
>> but also, human understandability and use a of data. RDF processing  
>> is
>> perfectly
>> adequate ways to exploit semantics by exploiting relationships
>> as first class objects.
>> Semantic annotations can improve search, for example,
>> or integration, without using inferencing.
>> Some ideas are in this paper:
>> http://knoesis.wright.edu/library/resource.php?id=00050
>>
>> Amit
>> http://knoesis.org/amit
>>
>> Victor Manuel Pelaez Martinez wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > This is a quite interesting use case, but it’s focused more on the
>> > sensor data than in the sensor network itself, so in our opinion it
>> > fits only partially in the scope of the group (as the group  
>> discussed
>> > in one of the teleconferences).
>> >
>> > We think that the most interesting point is the use of ontology
>> > reasoning (in this case using rules) because it goes further than  
>> the
>> > use cases based on syntactic queries.
>> >
>> > In our opinion we shouldn't be able to solve use cases using only
>> > syntactic queries, because that would mean that those use cases  
>> could
>> > be solved using other non-semantic technologies.
>> >
>> > We think that the use cases should show the advantages of using
>> > semantic technologies, so some kind of reasoning or inference  
>> should
>> > be necessary in order to solve them (as it is done in the paper  
>> sent
>> > by John). Perhaps this could be a good point to discuss within  
>> the use
>> > case work package.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Víctor M. Peláez
>> >
>> > Fundación CTIC
>> >
>> > Departamento de I+D+i
>> >
>> > victor.pelaez@fundacionctic.org <mailto:victor.pelaez@fundacionctic.org 
>> >
>> >
>> > Tfno: +34 984 29 12 12
>> >
>> > Fax: +34 984 39 06 12
>> >
>> > Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón - Asturias - Spain
>> >
>> > www.fundacionctic.org <http://www.fundacionctic.org>
>> >
>> >  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > *De:* public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org
>> > [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org] *En nombre de *John Graybeal
>> > *Enviado el:* jueves, 21 de mayo de 2009 0:39
>> > *Para:* public-xg-ssn@w3.org
>> > *CC:* Bob Morris; Matt Calder; Francesco Peri
>> > *Asunto:* another relevant bit of ontology
>> >
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > Bob Morris and his team at UMass (copied) have a paper in review  
>> [1]
>> > that seems highly relevant as a demonstration use case. It  
>> describes
>> > using ontologies to relate types
>> >
>> > of ecosystem events to properties of the ecosystem and the sensors
>> > observing it.
>> >
>> > I added this reference to the Use Cases page, and also to the
>> > References page, but the sensor ontology itself may be of direct
>> > interest (I don't have a link to that yet).
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > [1] http://efg.cs.umb.edu/pubs/SensorDataReasoning.pdf
>> >
>> > --------------
>> >
>> > John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org> -- 831-775-1956
>> > Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
>> > Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Se certificó que el correo entrante no contiene virus.
>> Comprobada por AVG - www.avg.es
>> Versión: 8.5.339 / Base de datos de virus: 270.12.39/2134 - Fecha  
>> de la
>> versión: 05/25/09 18:14:00
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Cory Andrew Henson
>> Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University
>> http://knoesis.wright.edu/researchers/cory/
>
>
> John
>
> --------------
> John Graybeal   <mailto:graybeal@mbari.org>  -- 831-775-1956
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Cory Andrew Henson
> Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University
> http://knoesis.wright.edu/researchers/cory/


John

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