RE: operating and survival conditions

Hi Michael,

Regarding the first point, when I browsed the ontology some of classes related to operational and survival conditions are not mapped to any concept. The classes are defined but no link between the concepts and other parts of the ontology is defined. 

On the second point, I agree; we should stick to modelling sensors. What I described as a "Role" is related to a sensor node platform. We focus on sensors rather than sensor nodes or communication network or deployment platforms. 


- Payam

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Compton [mailto:Michael.Compton@csiro.au] 
Sent: 05 July 2010 05:58
To: Barnaghi P Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Subject: Re: operating and survival conditions

Firstly, sorry for the slow reply - I've been on holidays.

I don't quite understand the first point.  Could you explain more fully.

On the second point, it seems to me hard to define a line that clearly  
marks out "sensor only" (or predominantly sensor specific) from the  
myriad of other properties related the sensors and devices.  My  
feeling is that for the XG's ontology we should stick as closely as  
possible to things that are only relevant to sensors or things where a  
sensor ontology is a very likely place for it to be defined.   
Admittedly, such a thing is hard to get right and we have already  
considered non sensor only things, like the operating and survival  
conditions, which could apply to any device, but it's mostly/often  
sensors that get placed in those conditions, and these are things that  
are often the concern of sensors, so it seems reasonable to define it  
ourselves rather than rely on other ontologies.

For things like acting as a router or storage hub, it seems to me that  
these are more broadly applicable network and concepts and, hence, it  
seems less appropriate to define them in a sensor ontology.  Does that  
make some sense?  Does anyone agree?  And of course are there other  
things we should include in this area?

Michael





On 25/06/2010, at 23:49 , p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> In SensorBasis_withSurvivalAndOperationalRange OWL file, it seems  
> some of the classes like StorageCapacity, OperatingRange have no  
> defined property.
>
> Also another question, in protocols like ZigBee there is a  
> possibility to define a sensor node as a Router in a wireless sensor  
> network, or a sensor node could be used as a storage hub for  
> replicating the data in some WSN designs. Do you think we should add  
> theses type of attributes to the model?
>
> Regards,
> Payam
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Michael.Compton@csiro.au
> Sent: 22 June 2010 14:00
> To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
> Subject: operating and survival conditions
>
> I've marked up Payam's suggestion for operating and survival  
> conditions into an OWL file (as an extension of the current version  
> of the ontology).  See http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Operating_Model
>
> I hope I've interpreted it properly.  All comments welcome - Payam,  
> if you see anything amiss let me know.
>
> On the same page is an example that encodes the operating and  
> survival conditions for a sensor.
>
> Both files are attached here.
>
> Michael

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 10:31:14 UTC