Re: ssn: action-155

Hi Payam,

Yes, help would be very much appreciated. I will email around a draft 
shortly. There are in fact many controlled vocabularies for sensor types 
and measurement types that we could refer to (e.g., 
http://www.bodc.ac.uk/products/web_services/vocab/ "101; anemometers; 
Instrument that measures wind speed and direction at a single 
elevation." to give just one example).

Best,
Krzysztof

On 05/10/2016 03:26 PM, p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>
> That would be great; I am also happy to help. NASA's sweet ontology 
> has a vocabulary for units of measurement but I haven't come across 
> any for sensor types
>
> and other vocabularies.
>
> OntoSensor may cover some of the vocab/concepts: 
> https://marinemetadata.org/conventions
>
> Thanks,
> Payam
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
> *Sent:* 10 May 2016 23:07
> *To:* Barnaghi P Dr (Elec Electronic Eng); Simon.Cox@csiro.au; 
> kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: ssn: action-155
> Thanks. I can work out a small set of axioms for such common core and 
> then we can see whether this is an interesting route to take or not.
>
> On 05/10/2016 03:04 PM, p.barnaghi@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> I totally agree with Krzysztof's idea of creating a core 
>> ontology/vocabulary. Once we have good models we still need common 
>> models to
>>
>> specify the data for those models; for example common types of 
>> sensors, observation types etc.
>>
>> There are several works on creating ontology models but few on common 
>> ontologies (or at least I am not aware of).
>>
>> Best, Payam
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Krzysztof Janowicz <janowicz@ucsb.edu>
>> *Sent:* 10 May 2016 21:45
>> *To:* Simon.Cox@csiro.au; kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: ssn: action-155
>> As discussed before, I believe that om-lite should be integrated with 
>> the current SSN. In fact, I still strongly believe that we need to 
>> develop a simple core ontology/vocabulary around central notions such 
>> as sensor and observations that can be used for simple, everyday 
>> linked data and acts as interfaces/hooks for other SSN modules.
>>
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>
>> On 05/09/2016 06:06 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote:
>>>
>>> FWIW All classes and most properties in om-lite have reasonably 
>>> precise definitions in rdf:comment and dct:description properties. 
>>>  Not formally axiomatized, but a lot more than just labels. For 
>>> example oml:Observation is described:
>>>
>>> An observation is an act associated with a discrete time instant or 
>>> period through which a number, term or other symbol is assigned to a 
>>> phenomenon [2]. It involves application of a specified procedure, 
>>> such as a sensor, instrument, algorithm or process chain. The 
>>> procedure may be applied in-situ, remotely, or ex-situ with respect 
>>> to the sampling location. The result of an observation is an 
>>> estimate of the value of a property of some feature. Use of a common 
>>> model allows observation data using different procedures to be 
>>> combined unambiguously.
>>>
>>> The observation itself is also a feature, since it has properties 
>>> and identity.
>>>
>>> Observation details are important for data discovery and for data 
>>> quality estimation.
>>>
>>> The observation could be considered to carry metadata about an 
>>> instance of a property (of the feature of interest). This 
>>> property-value metadata complements the dataset and feature metadata 
>>> that have been conventionally considered (e.g. ISO 19115).
>>>
>>> The values for the properties 'procedure', 'featureOfInterest', 
>>> 'observedProperty', 'phenomenonTime', 'resultTime' may be inherited 
>>> from a container resource.
>>>
>>> See 
>>> <http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/om-lite#Observation>http://def.seegrid.csiro.au/ontology/om/om-lite#Observation 
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> *From:*Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janowicz@ucsb.edu]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 10 May 2016 5:29 AM
>>> *To:* Kerry Taylor <kerry.taylor@anu.edu.au>; public-sdw-wg@w3.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: ssn: action-155
>>>
>>> Hi Kerry,
>>>
>>> Sure. One of the reasons to include DUL in the original SSN was the 
>>> need for a stronger semantic anchoring of the classes and 
>>> relationships defined in SSN. One problem we faced was that terms 
>>> such as Sensor, System, Observation, were under-specific to a degree 
>>> where a major part of the intended interpretation of these classes 
>>> was encoded in terms of their labels. DUL gave us additional axioms 
>>> to further refine what was meant by 'Sensor', 'Observation' and so 
>>> forth. Removing DUL, will leave us with the same problem as we had 
>>> before, and, thus, I proposed to make use of the power of OWL2 to 
>>> add a stronger axiomatic foundation to SSN (classes).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/09/2016 05:20 AM, Kerry Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>     Krzysztof,
>>>
>>>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/track/actions/155
>>>
>>>     Could you please address this remark you made in an ssn meeting
>>>     some time ago? I read it as a suggestion for a major ssn
>>>     rewrite, but perhaps it  is a suggestion for an extension
>>>     instead?  Or something else?  It is sitting on this page
>>>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/SSN_Tasks  at present but
>>>     maybe it deserves attention as one of these proposals on the
>>>     wiki here
>>>     https://www.w3.org/2015/spatial/wiki/Proposals_for_rewriting_SSN?  If
>>>     nothing better can  you please explain it on the list so we can
>>>     handle it appropriately and write it off the “task list” if
>>>     appropriate?
>>>
>>>     Thanks,
>>>
>>>     Kerry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Krzysztof Janowicz
>>>   
>>> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
>>> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>>>   
>>> Email:jano@geog.ucsb.edu <mailto:jano@geog.ucsb.edu>
>>> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/ <http://geog.ucsb.edu/%7Ejano/>
>>> Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Krzysztof Janowicz
>>
>> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
>> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>>
>> Email:jano@geog.ucsb.edu
>> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
>> Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
> -- 
> Krzysztof Janowicz
>
> Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
> 4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
>
> Email:jano@geog.ucsb.edu
> Webpage:http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
> Semantic Web Journal:http://www.semantic-web-journal.net


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: jano@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net