[auscope-geosciml] Statistical terms (mean, min, max) in SWE Common [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Sun Aug 8 20:49:03 EDT 2010


Hi all,

I've been observing the recent discussion about statistical result values (eg, max, min, mean). The GeoSciML modelling team submitted a SWE change request back in January for inclusion of an explicit attribute to hold statistical descriptors for use with swe:Quantity.  I had some discussions with Alex about options that we could use without changing the SWE Common model, but all involved delivering the statistical qualifier using an attribute that was not explicitly modelled to deliver statistical terms.

For example:

<om:Observation>
  <om:observedProperty xlink:href="http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/chemConcentration.owl#Composition"/>
    <om:result>
      <swe:DataRecord>
        <swe:field name="SiO2 concentration">
           <swe:Quantity definition="http://dictionary.uncertml.org/statistics/mean">
              <swe:uom xlink:href="#weightPercent"/>
              <swe:value>53.6</swe:value>
           </swe:Quantity>
        </swe:field>
        <swe:field name="SiO2 concentration">
           <swe:Quantity definition="http://dictionary.uncertml.org/statistics/maximum">
              <swe:uom xlink:href="#weightPercent"/>
              <swe:value>55.0</swe:value>
           </swe:Quantity>
        </swe:field>
     </swe:DataRecord>
  </om:result>
</om:Observation>

or....

<om:Observation>
  <om:observedProperty xlink:href="http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/chemConcentration.owl#Composition"/>
    <om:result>
      <swe:DataRecord>
        <swe:field name="mean SiO2 concentration">
           <swe:Quantity>
              <swe:uom xlink:href="#weightPercent"/>
              <swe:value>53.6</swe:value>
           </swe:Quantity>
        </swe:field>
        <swe:field name="maximum SiO2 concentration">
           <swe:Quantity>
              <swe:uom xlink:href="#weightPercent"/>
              <swe:value>55.0</swe:value>
           </swe:Quantity>
        </swe:field>
     </swe:DataRecord>
  </om:result>
</om:Observation>

There are other ways you could deliver this data, depending on whether you regard the observedProperty/result as :
  a) chemical composition, (or temperature)
  b) SiO2 concentration, (or sea surface temperature)
  c) maximum SiO2 concentration (or maximum sea surface temperature)

How would others deliver this kind of data?

Regards,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ollie Raymond

National Advice, Maps and Data Standards Project
Geoscience Australia

GeoSciML Design Group
IUGS Commission for the Management and Application of Geoscience Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address: GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia | ABN: 80 091 799 039
Ph: +61 2 62499575 | Fax: +61 2 62499992 | Email: Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
National geological maps  http://www.ga.gov.au/minerals/research/national/nat_maps/nat_geol_maps.jsp
Geoscience Australia web services  http://www.ga.gov.au/resources/applications/ogc-wms.jsp
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 --- This message was created with 100% recycled electrons ---

-----Original Message-----
From: om2.0.swg-bounces+oliver.raymond=ga.gov.au at lists.opengeospatial.org [mailto:om2.0.swg-bounces+oliver.raymond=ga.gov.au at lists.opengeospatial.org] On Behalf Of Johannes Echterhoff
Sent: Friday, 6 August 2010 6:41 PM
To: 'Lekkerkerk, Huibert-Jan (WD)'; Peter.Taylor at csiro.au; andrew.woolf at stfc.ac.uk; Simon.Cox at csiro.au; dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk
Cc: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr
Subject: Re: [OM2.0.swg] ***MOGELIJK SPAM*** Re: New governance for the (former) SWE Phenomenon?

Sure, the level of detail you would like to describe the O&M properties is
up to you.

To clarify: SensorML also supports non-physical processes, i.e. pure
algorithms - the ProcessModel and ProcessChain would be the according types
to use. In that respect SensorML is not heavily focused on describing
physical processes - they are just described in more detail as that is
necessary to explain things like system location and relative component
position.

Coming back to the semantics of the observed property: imho this should be
identical to what is expected from the property of the observation's feature
of interest. That is exactly what the O&M model defines. If you have a
well-defined model for that (e.g. a GML application schema) then the
semantics of the observedProperty are given by that model, afaic. If you
have an open-ended model (e.g. using sampling features) then it is up to you
to define the semantics of the observedProperty ... this can but does not
need to include indication that the result is a day-min, day-max, day-mean
etc. computation. I leave that for the semantics gurus to debate.

Best,
Johannes


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Lekkerkerk, Huibert-Jan (WD) [mailto:h.lekkerkerk at idsw.nl]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 6. August 2010 10:20
> An: johannes.echterhoff at igsi.eu; Peter.Taylor at csiro.au;
> andrew.woolf at stfc.ac.uk; Simon.Cox at csiro.au; dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk
> Cc: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr
> Betreff: RE: [OM2.0.swg] ***MOGELIJK SPAM*** Re: New governance for the
> (former) SWE Phenomenon?
>
> Johannes,
>
> It probably could, the question is whether you want to go into that much
> detail for just the min/max thermometer example of Andrew. We have decided
> that this would lead to an extensive amount of overhead in the
datastructure
> that does not solve any practical problem that isn't solved by the
'simple'
> solution. The other thing is that the focus of SensorML is so much geared
> towards 'field' observations where we deal for a large part with 'derived'
> observations or even conclusions such as indicators for e.g. the state of
the
> waters that SensorML does not really support.
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,
>
> Huibert-Jan Lekkerkerk
> Sr. Projectleider standaarden IDsW
> ____________________________________
> InformatieDesk standaarden Water
> Postbus 17, 8200 AA Lelystad
> Zuiderwagenplein 2, 8224 AD Lelystad
> T + 31 (0) 320 298 595
> M + 31 (0) 613 71 8239
> F + 31 (0) 320 298366
> E h.lekkerkerk at idsw.nl
> I www.idsw.nl
> ____________________________________
>
> IDsW is een samenwerkingsverband van vijf waterbeherende overheden (Unie
van
> Waterschappen, Rijkswaterstaat, InterProvinciaal Overleg, Planbureau voor
de
> Leefomgeving en LNV). IDsW beheert en ontwikkelt informatiestandaarden
voor
> het Nederlandse Waterbeheer. Op deze manier zet IDsW zich in voor de
> stroomlijning van de informatievoorziening van de sector water.
>
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Johannes Echterhoff [mailto:johannes.echterhoff at igsi.eu]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 6 augustus 2010 10:16
> Aan: Lekkerkerk, Huibert-Jan (WD); Peter.Taylor at csiro.au;
> andrew.woolf at stfc.ac.uk; Simon.Cox at csiro.au; dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk
> CC: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr
> Onderwerp: AW: [OM2.0.swg] ***MOGELIJK SPAM*** Re: New governance for the
> (former) SWE Phenomenon?
>
> "a single procedure can lead to more results that may differ"
>
> Such a procedure can be described with a SensorML System or ProcessChain,
can
> it not?
>
> Regards,
> Johannes
>
>
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von:
> om2.0.swg-bounces+johannes.echterhoff=igsi.eu at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > [mailto:om2.0.swg-
> > bounces+johannes.echterhoff=igsi.eu at lists.opengeospatial.org] Im
> > bounces+Auftrag
> von
> > Lekkerkerk, Huibert-Jan (WD)
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 6. August 2010 09:33
> > An: Peter.Taylor at csiro.au; andrew.woolf at stfc.ac.uk;
> > Simon.Cox at csiro.au; dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk
> > Cc: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr
> > Betreff: Re: [OM2.0.swg] ***MOGELIJK SPAM*** Re: New governance for
> > the
> > (former) SWE Phenomenon?
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Just adding my two pence worth of thoughts. I'm still recent to these
> > discussions, so maybe some of my remarks have already been discussed,
> > but anyway.
> >
> > In the implementation of O&M in the Netherlands we have run into
> > similar issues. We have solved this (maybe partially) by adding a
> > 'valueDeterminationMethod' attribute in the proces description where
> > the statistical parameters are included in a codelist that is
> > references. That could / would solve the min / max / mean issues. Two
> > values out of a
> single
> > instrument are recognized in our extension as a 'value' series with
> different
> > processes attached (I do know that our definition of process is not
> identical
> > to the latest of O&M; ours is linked directly to the result and is the
> > process that described the result (and not the observation!).
> >
> > We also recognize in this specific process that there are other,
> > important aspects of result determination such as interpretation
conditions
> (e.g.
> > observation is concentration of PO4 with the result expressed in units
> > of ug/l as P; this is quite common in nutrient determination).
> >
> > I think the time problem is already solved in O&M (monthly etc)
> > although
> it
> > does need an exact reference to the time period used (which is not a
> > bad idea; if it is given as a single time for e.g. the middle / start
> > / end of
> a
> > period in the observation then I do believe this is part of the
procedure!
> > But putting the statistics in the procedure is not correct as a single
> > procedure can lead to more results that may differ.
> >
> > The use of a central dictionary for this is always better than
> > localised versions.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > HJ
> >
> > Huibert-Jan Lekkerkerk
> > Sr. Projectmanager standardisation IDsW
> > ____________________________________
> > InformationDesk standards Water
> > Postbus 17, 8200 AA Lelystad
> > Zuiderwagenplein 2, 8224 AD Lelystad
> > T + 31 (0) 320 298 595
> > M + 31 (0) 613 71 8239
> > F + 31 (0) 320 298366
> > E h.lekkerkerk at idsw.nl
> > I www.idsw.nl
> > ____________________________________
> >
> > IDsW is a partnership between five water managing authorities in the
> > Netherlands (Union of Waterboards, Ministry of Transportation and
> > Watermanagement, InterProvincial Board, Environmental Planning Agency
> > and
> the
> > Ministry of Agriculture and Food). IDsW manages and develops
> > information standards for water management in the Netherlands. This
> > way IDsW helps developing a streamlined informationsystem for the water
> sector.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: om2.0.swg-bounces+h.lekkerkerk=idsw.nl at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > [mailto:om2.0.swg-bounces+h.lekkerkerk=idsw.nl at lists.opengeospatial.or
> > g]
> > Namens Peter.Taylor at csiro.au
> > Verzonden: donderdag 5 augustus 2010 13:20
> > Aan: andrew.woolf at stfc.ac.uk; Simon.Cox at csiro.au;
> > dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk
> > CC: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr
> > Onderwerp: ***MOGELIJK SPAM*** Re: [OM2.0.swg] New governance for the
> > (former) SWE Phenomenon?
> >
> > Yes we have had similar discussion with WaterML2: balancing between
> > what
> is
> > 'right' (conceptually) and what people expect (based on how they
> > normally structure and interpret data). We've described the nature of
> > such results (time series, average/min/max over an interval and which
> > direction the interval holds) with the result; mainly because it is so
> > important when interpreting the data and people don't normally look in
> > the process description for it. A lot of existing standards for
> > hydrological data
> don't
> > even maintain references to the generating process (not suggesting we
> > shouldn't though, I'm all for it).
> >
> > Often a system will maintain a tree of the dependent results: raw as
> > measured, av/min/max hourly, daily, monthly etc, i.e. a full suite of
> > pre- calculated summary statistics. In waterml2 we are coming up
> > against how
> best
> > to represent these in O&M, so a consistent approach would be worth
> > developing.
> >
> > Pete.
> > ________________________________________
> > From: andrew.woolf at stfc.ac.uk [andrew.woolf at stfc.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 7:02 PM
> > To: Cox, Simon (CESRE, Kensington); dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk; Taylor,
> > Peter (ICT Centre, Hobart)
> > Cc: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr
> > Subject: RE: [OM2.0.swg] New governance for the (former) SWE Phenomenon?
> >
> > Simon,
> >
> > I agree with this - to a point (especially for the SST case).
> >
> > However, we have common enough cases where it would be forcing matters
> > for the sake of the model to insist on such decomposition. For
> > instance, an instrument like a maximum-minimum thermometer really
> > measures maximum
> > (minimum) temperature over some time interval, it doesn't measure
> temperature
> > and calculate maximum in a separate (sub)process. Likewise we have
> > instruments that directly measure a bulk property (usually an average)
> over
> > some region of space. To require the statistical summarisation mode to
> > be modelled as part of the procedure feels somewhat pedantic,
> > certainly unnatural, and possibly misleading (in the context of
'procedure'
> > practitioners would expect details of the measurement instrumentation,
> > for which it would not be normal practice in such cases to regard
> > 'statistical summarisation' characteristics as distinct/independent
> parameters).
> >
> > As well, it is conventional practice to consider statistically
> representative
> > phenomena independent from the procedure (i.e. to talk about the
> > January minimum temperatures over a decade without reference to the
> procedure).
> >
> > Some years ago we started (but never completed) work on applying SWE
> > Phenomenon to model such 'statistically representative' phenomena (see
> > http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=25716 and attached
> doc).
> > I still think it would be useful to recognise this as a broadly useful
> > specific class of constrained phenomena (and I like the phrase
> > 'statistically-representative phenomena') and develop a model for it;
> > and
> I
> > think this is the right place.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
> > om2.0.swg-bounces+andrew.woolf=stfc.ac.uk at lists.opengeospatial.org
> >
>
[mailto:om2.0.swg-bounces+andrew.woolf=stfc.ac.uk at lists.opengeospatial.org]
> > On Behalf Of Simon.Cox at csiro.au
> > Sent: 04 August 2010 15:36
> > To: Lowe, Dominic (STFC,RAL,SSTD); Peter.Taylor at csiro.au
> > Cc: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr
> > Subject: Re: [OM2.0.swg] New governance for the (former) SWE Phenomenon?
> >
> > You have to be a bit careful with these constrained phenomena.
> > Using O&M terminology, in most cases they actually mix the
> observedProperty
> > with either the procedure (e.g. monthly-mean temperature) or with the
> feature
> > of interest (sea surface temperature).
> > 'Temperature' is the true semantics.
> > Monthly mean is procedure/protocol/sampling-regime.
> > Sea surface is foi.
> >
> > So we should ask the question as to whether we should be burying
> > procedure/foi in the phenomenon, or rather encouraging people to split
> these
> > factors out correctly.
> >
> > ---
> > simon.cox at csiro.au
> > CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering Australian Resources
> > Research Centre PO Box 1130, Bentley WA 6102 Australia
> > T: +61 8 6436 8639
> > F: +61 8 6436 8555
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Dominic Lowe [dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 4 August 2010 9:31 PM
> > To: Taylor, Peter (ICT Centre, Hobart)
> > Cc: ingo.simonis at igsi.eu; om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org;
> > Alexandre.Robin at spotimage.fr; Cox, Simon (CESRE, Kensington)
> > Subject: Re: [OM2.0.swg] New governance for the (former) SWE Phenomenon?
> >
> > Hi Pete,
> >
> > Great - it would be good to have you involved.
> >
> > In the first instance I'm mainly interested in keeping the current
> > model alive :)
> >
> > Beyond that, one development that's of particular interest to me would
> > be
> the
> > idea that we don't just want to say 'temperature' but might want to
> > say
> the
> > phenomenon is 'monthly mean temperature', or 'maximum temperature'. So
> > you have the concept of the base phenomenon (which may be described
> externally)
> > and then you have some sort of function. In climate data we use a lot
> > of combined averaging mechanisms that I'm not sure can be expressed in
> > the current model.
> >
> > Also as Alex suggested, alternate encodings may be useful (especially
> > if gml:Dictionary becomes deprecated in future versions).
> >
> > Cheers
> > Dom
> >
> > On 04/08/10 11:52, Peter.Taylor at csiro.au wrote:
> > > I'm interested in this as well, I'd be happy to provide some input
> > > if I
> > can. Dom: do you have an idea of what the scope or features you are
> > interested in would be? I seem to recall the current model supports
> > constraints and compounds, with a reference id to an external
definition.
> I
> > understood Alex's reasoning behind removing it (in light of using
> > plain references to semantic resources), but it is handy sometimes to
> > have extra metadata that is closer to the reference; resolution of the
> > semantic reference is often not supported or available.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Pete.
> > > ________________________________________
> > > From:
> > > om2.0.swg-bounces+peter.taylor=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > > [om2.0.swg-bounces+peter.taylor=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Ingo Simonis [ingo.simonis at igsi.eu]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:35 PM
> > > To: Dominic Lowe
> > > Cc: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org; Robin,  Alexandre; Cox,
> > > Simon (CESRE, Kensington)
> > > Subject: Re: [OM2.0.swg] New governance for the (former) SWE
Phenomenon?
> > >
> > > They main reason I want to avoid having another SWE SWG is that we
> already
> > have major difficulties to find time slots at the TC meetings... As
> > the semantics are a SWE-wide issue, it would fit into SweCommon, I would
> say.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ingo
> > >
> > >
> > > On 04.08.2010, at 11:19, Dominic Lowe wrote:
> > >
> > >> Alex, Simon, Ingo, Dan,
> > >>
> > >> Many thanks for your input on this.
> > >>
> > >> Logically I also like the idea of a SWE Semantics SWG, but am also
> > >> slightly wary of the overhead involved of a new SWG (both at
> > >> startup and ongoing).
> > >>
> > >> As Alex suggests the more pragmatic solution may be to extend the
> > >> SWG Common charter and start the work sooner. We could always set
> > >> up SWE Semantics at a later date if needs be. (On the other hand if
> > >> we know we are going to need SWE Semantics SWG at some point then
> > >> there is a case for doing it from the offset...)
> > >>
> > >> Basically I would be happy with either solution - so unless there
> > >> are any other suitable alternatives I guess it is up to the SWE
> > >> Common SWG at this point?
> > >>
> > >> I think we agree that the Phenomenon model should have it's own
> > >> namespace regardless of which SWG develops it.
> > >>
> > >>> In the mean time, why can't you use version 1.0 of the phenomenon
> model?
> > >>>
> > >> Yes thinking about it this does seem sensible - instead of
> > >> reproducing it elsewhere :)
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Dominic
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 04/08/10 08:55, Robin, Alexandre wrote:
> > >>> Hi Dominic,
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree that a SWE semantics SWG would be ideal because that would
> give
> > us a chance to seriously study the interactions between the SWE
> > phenomenon model and other ontology languages such as RDF and OWL. For
> > instance it is worth seriously investigating how the conceptual model
> > could be
> implemented
> > in OWL rather than plain XML, etc...
> > >>>
> > >>> Since work on the SWE Common Data Model and SWE Service Common is
> coming
> > to an end in the SWE Common SWG, there is also a possibility that
> > version
> 2.0
> > of the phenomenon model can be developed there, provided we update the
> > charter. I will probably not be available to chair the group anymore
> > but
> I'm
> > sure we can find somebody else for that. I'm proposing this because it
> > can
> be
> > a quicker thing than creating a whole new SWG and work can start
> immediately.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the mean time, why can't you use version 1.0 of the phenomenon
> model?
> > >>>
> > >>> Cheers,
> > >>>
> > >>> -------------------------------------------------
> > >>> Alexandre Robin
> > >>> Spot Image, Web and E-Business
> > >>> Tel: +33 (0)5 62 19 43 62
> > >>> Fax: +33 (0)5 62 19 43 43
> > >>> http://www.spotimage.com
> > >>> Before printing, think about the environment
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> -----Message d'origine-----
> > >>>> De : om2.0.swg-
> > >>>> bounces+alexandre.robin=spotimage.fr at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > >>>> [mailto:om2.0.swg-
> > >>>> bounces+alexandre.robin=spotimage.fr at lists.opengeospatial.org] De
> > >>>> bounces+la
> > >>>> part de Simon.Cox at csiro.au
> > >>>> Envoyé : lundi 2 août 2010 20:28
> > >>>> À : dominic.lowe at stfc.ac.uk; om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > >>>> Objet : Re: [OM2.0.swg] New governance for the (former) SWE
> Phenomenon?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dom -
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I understand your reasoning: the O&M activity is a plausible
> umbrella.
> > >>>> As you are aware, it originated in O&M pre v1.0 and was only
> > >>>> moved into SWE Common relatively late in the piece, when it
> > >>>> appeared that all the 'common' elements should be there.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now SWE Common has been re-cast as a data-typing exercise the
> > >>>> 'phenomenon' model deals with some semantics which appears to be
> > >>>> beyond the scope of SWE Common.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But it needs its own namespace, as it is equally important for
> > >>>> SensorML.
> > >>>> To progress this, I'm not sure that the O&M SWG is formally the
> > >>>> right place as the charter would need a bit of 'interpreting' to
> > >>>> take this on.
> > >>>> Maybe a 'SWE Semantics' SWG?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Simon
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> From:
> > >>>> om2.0.swg-bounces+simon.cox=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > >>>> [mailto:om2.0.swg-bounces+simon.cox=csiro.au at lists.opengeospatial
> > >>>> .o
> > >>>> rg]
> > >>>> On Behalf Of Dominic Lowe
> > >>>> Sent: 29 July 2010 11:33
> > >>>> To: om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > >>>> Subject: [OM2.0.swg] New governance for the (former) SWE
Phenomenon?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would like to propose that a new standard or document is
> > >>>> created that provides a formal OGC definition of the model and
> > >>>> schemas formerly known as the SWE Phenomenon model.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As you know, this was removed from SWE recently as (according to
> > >>>> my
> > >>>> understanding) it was felt SWE was not the right place to govern
> > >>>> this very general model. However the need for such a model
> > >>>> remains; we have been using the SWE Phenomenon for a while now in
> > >>>> the context of CSML (Climate Science Modelling Language). There
> > >>>> has also recently been a need to use it in the ESA HMA Follow On
> > >>>> project - and as a result of it's current non-existence we are
> > >>>> now having to replicate the old SWE model in the HMA namespace.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Clearly it is a useful and practical model and it would be good
> > >>>> to have an agreed definition of phenomena in OGC that could be
> > >>>> used in a variety of contexts.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would be happy to take on the responsibility for taking this
> > >>>> forward whether it be as a best practice paper, or a standalone
> > >>>> OGC standard - starting with the old SWE model as a baseline.
> > >>>> However it needs to have a 'home' within OGC. I have discussed
> > >>>> this with Johannes and we both agree that the O&M SWG may be a
> > >>>> logical place for the governance of this model - it is very
> > >>>> generic and is an important part of the observations framework.
> > >>>> However I don't imagine that it would necessarily be under the
> > >>>> O&M namespace at the implementation level (although that is
> > >>>> clearly a discussion to have).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So this email is to canvass initial support for (or against) the
> > >>>> idea within the O&M SWG. What are your thoughts..?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dominic
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> OM2.0.swg mailing list
> > >>>> OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > >>>> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> OM2.0.swg mailing list
> > >>>> OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > >>>> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> OM2.0.swg mailing list
> > >> OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > >> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OM2.0.swg mailing list
> > > OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > > https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg
> > _______________________________________________
> > OM2.0.swg mailing list
> > OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg
> >
> > --
> > Scanned by iCritical.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OM2.0.swg mailing list
> > OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg
> >
> >
> > Disclaimer
> > **********************************************************************
> > ** Aan dit bericht kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. Dit bericht is
> > uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Als u dit bericht per abuis
> > hebt ontvangen, wordt u verzocht het te vernietigen en de afzender te
> > informeren. Wij adviseren u om bij twijfel over de juistheid of de
> > volledigheid van de mail contact met afzender op te nemen.
> >
> > This message shall not constitute any rights or obligations.
> > This message is intended solely for the addressee.
> > If you have received this message in error, please delete it and
> > notify the sender immediately. When in doubt whether this message is
> > correct or complete, please contact the sender.
> > **********************************************************************
> > **
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OM2.0.swg mailing list
> > OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> > https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg
>
>
>
> Disclaimer
> ************************************************************************
> Aan dit bericht kunnen geen rechten worden ontleend. Dit bericht is
> uitsluitend bestemd voor de geadresseerde. Als u dit bericht per abuis
> hebt ontvangen, wordt u verzocht het te vernietigen en de afzender te
> informeren. Wij adviseren u om bij twijfel over de juistheid of de
> volledigheid van de mail contact met afzender op te nemen.
>
> This message shall not constitute any rights or obligations.
> This message is intended solely for the addressee.
> If you have received this message in error, please delete it and
> notify the sender immediately. When in doubt whether this message
> is correct or complete, please contact the sender.
> ************************************************************************


_______________________________________________
OM2.0.swg mailing list
OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg



More information about the GeoSciML mailing list