Semantic Sensor Network Incubator Group Teleconference

27 Apr 2010

See also: IRC log


Holger, +1.518.281.aabb, Payam, [MIT528], michael_, +1.716.688.aacc, laurent_lefort_cs, Arthur, +1.937.775.aadd, +39.033.278.aaee, +1.937.775.aaff, krzysztof_j, krp


<trackbot> Date: 27 April 2010

<Danh_DERI> +1.518.281.aabb is me

<dongmei> hello,mit528 is me


<vhuang> Good afternoon, I am on the phone as well, but I don't know which one is me.

<Holger> that's ok ;-)

<Holger> ScribeNick: laurent_lefort_cs

Actions from last meeting

Holger recaps what happened on the mailing list: message from Luis

<scribe> Pending actions: communications to W3C about status of Member submission

Michael to describe the EGU presentation


Status of semantic markup deliverables? We drop the submission: what are we doing for the report?

Amit: We will focus on the report on the part which has not been done elsewhere

<AmitSheth> We will make annotation as part of the main report -- as best practices that will describe how the ontology can be used for semantic annotation of sensor data

<AmitSheth> but generally we are not offering new language/syntax

<Holger> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Modelling_of_Accuracy%2C_etc

Discussion on status of Modelling of Accuracy

<cory> ?q

Michael: working on the basis of two proposals, Michael's and the MMI one (Luis with help from other MMI OntDev participants).
... No major differences except in Luis's proposal the link is done thru capability constraint (linked one by one)
... Michael has grouped all the parameters in a "tuple".


<michael_> http://marinemetadata.org/community/teams/ontdevices/devontacc


Cory: are the capabilities organised in hierarchies?

Michael: no

Discussion on whether we need to add a property for each type of capabilities

<michael_> +q

Amit: can I model for a cases where two capabilities are related, e.g. if I use more energy I got more accuracy


Michael: our proposals are more expressive - they can handle expressions of trade offs between two criterias
... The model does not cover all the possible terms/concepts you may want to model but show how this can be done

<michael_> Exploring Tradeoffs in Accuracy, Energy and Latency of Scale Invariant Feature Transform in Wireless Camera Networks - right one ??

Amit: I'm interested by energy-related issues. Can the model cover temporal aspects
... e.g. the battery may last 10 hours
... Can the model describe the conditions in which the sensor can operate e.g. the temperature range

Michael: we can cover temperature range as part of a condition for a capability e.g. accuracy, not temperature range as a survival range.
... For time e.g. the latency between measurements maybe not all the requests linked to other entities e.g. the time at which a user want to use a sensor

Amit: what about the geospatial aspects: coordinate systems with multiple axis

Michael: we have not captured yet things like field of view ...

Amit: Energy and geospatial movement/coverage are important.
... We need examples to explain how the modelling language we chose and also on how this can be extended.

Michael: agreed

<cory> ?q

Cory: do we have a pros and cons list of the two approaches?

<michael_> +q

Michael: there is an email posted last week where we discussed some of the differences
... The main difference is the decision to group or to separate the capabilities parameters

<scox> Think about scalability

<scox> RDF allows 'any order you like'

Laurent: tuple may be better for automated processing and separated ones maybe be better for discovery

Cory: the next criteria if they express the same thing is simplicity


<vhuang> +q

<michael_> +q

Laurent: Simplicity depends on wether you use the ontology in a RDF or in an annotated XML file

<Holger_Oz> http://marinemetadata.org/community/teams/ontdevices/devontacc

Vincent: remark on the example supplied by Luis/Carlos line 78 why intersection and not union?

<vhuang> line 178

Michael: answering to Laurent's comment on simplicity, I don't see there is a trade off, difference between the two contexts of use.

<Payam> +q

<Arthur> I think the model proposed by Michael would be better structured with specific measurement capabilities (latency, FoV, Frequency,...) being sub-concepts of MeasurementCapability; and the MeasurementCapability can be ralated to Accuracy then.

<krzysztof_j> ack

Payam: the priority should be the description logic model, not the verbosity of the examples

<michael_> +q

Michael: we should add a sub-class relation between Capability and a more generic concept to my model

<Arthur> ... and the MeasurementCapability can be ralated to Condition then.

Michael: It would be good to treat them equally in the constraint expression and differently where they are use as a charcteristic of the device

<michael_> no just giving an option

<cory> I agree, this would simplify the model


<scox> +1

<cory> +1

<krp> +1

<krzysztof_j> +1

<Payam> -1

<michael_> +1

<AmitSheth> -1

<Arthur> -1

<krzysztof_j> 0

<scox> +1

<krp> -1

<vhuang> 0

<cory> -1, would like to hear luis argument

<dongmei> +1

Holger: vote one whether we vote today or note starting above from Payam

<vhuang> +1


<Payam> I agree with Cory- hearning Luis's argument

<sumita> -1

<michael_> ...you just gave yourself work too Laurent :-)

<scox> +q

<krzysztof_j> the wiki has a upload form in the left menu

Simon: what is the process to upload documents?

<krzysztof_j> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/Special:Upload

<Holger_Oz> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/wiki/images/4/41/EGU2010v1_3.pdf

<michael_> ...for my part, I'm happy to hear suggestions for more pictures

Laurent: (other business) I'm going to do a talk on "Semantically-Enabled Standard development" about what we do in the XG at Metadata Australia 2010 (May 27 in Canberra) http://www.metadataaustralia2010.com/ (a bit more general than what we've done in the Semantic Markup activity)

<Payam> +q

Two sessions have been merged: http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/oral_programme/1923

<vhuang> I have been disconnected.

Laurent: The EGU talk is just after a talk by Oscar Corcho on Semantic Sensors for Rapid Application Development for Environmental Management

Simon recommends that we have more images and more examples

<cory> sure, we have a few slides

<scox> I have to go to another telecon now!

<Arthur> I didn't say anything now

<krzysztof_j> bye

<krp> bye

<Arthur> bye

Payam suggest that we use the EGU talk as the opportinuty to engage with other groups working on related projects. Need to add a slide calling for collaboration.

<scox> +1

<scox> q

<scox> +q

<scox> -q

<scox> quit

<scox> bye

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/04/27 14:12:13 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found ScribeNick: laurent_lefort_cs
Inferring Scribes: laurent_lefort_cs

WARNING: Dash separator lines found.  If you intended them to mark
the start of a new topic, you need the -dashTopics option.
For example:
        <Philippe> ---
        <Philippe> Review of Action Items

Default Present: Holger, +1.518.281.aabb, Payam, [MIT528], michael_, +1.716.688.aacc, laurent_lefort_cs, Arthur, +1.937.775.aadd, +39.033.278.aaee, +1.937.775.aaff, krzysztof_j, krp
Present: Holger +1.518.281.aabb Payam [MIT528] michael_ +1.716.688.aacc laurent_lefort_cs Arthur +1.937.775.aadd +39.033.278.aaee +1.937.775.aaff krzysztof_j krp
Regrets: Luis
Found Date: 27 Apr 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/27-ssn-minutes.html
People with action items: 

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]