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

Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au
Mon Aug 9 07:27:53 EDT 2010


Forwarding Alexandre's reply

======================================================================

Hi all,

We could investigate handling statistical properties in SWE Common via additional tags (as an extension).

For example:

<swe:field name="SiO2 concentration">
  <swe:Quantity definition="http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/chemConcentration.owl#MassConcentration">
    <swe:extension>
      <swe:statisticalOp>http://dictionary.uncertml.org/statistics/maximum</swe:statisticalOp>
    </swe:extension>
    <swe:uom code="mg/l"/>
    <swe:value>55.0</swe:value>
  </swe:Quantity>
</swe:field>

The obvious advantage of decoupling the statistical operator from the property semantics themselves is that we don't have to define a separate dictionary entry for each possible combination of property and statistical operator.

However the inconvenient of defining something in SWE Common is that other SWE standards may not benefit from it...

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 : Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au [mailto:Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au] Envoyé
> : lundi 9 août 2010 02:49 À : johannes.echterhoff at igsi.eu;
> h.lekkerkerk at idsw.nl; 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; Robin, Alexandre; auscope-
> geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au Objet : Statistical terms (mean, min, max)
> in SWE Common [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
>
> 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#Compos
> i
> tion"/>
>     <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#Compos
> i
> tion"/>
>     <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
> bounces+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
> > > >>>> bounces+]
> 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