[auscope-geosciml] FW: [OM2.0.swg] 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 07:57:06 EDT 2010


"..but I also see that Alexandre and Ingo cc'ed to auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au.."

That's because I cc'ed the geosciml list in on my original question and they clicked 'reply to all'.  Neither Alex or Ingo are members of the geosciml list, and their emails bounced, so I had to forward their replies on for the rest of the geosciml list to see.

Cheers,
Ollie

-----Original Message-----
From: auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] On Behalf Of Boisvert, Eric
Sent: Monday, 9 August 2010 9:42 PM
To: auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Subject: Re: [auscope-geosciml] FW: [OM2.0.swg] Statistical terms (mean, min, max) in SWE Common [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I do, but I also see that Alexandre and Ingo cc'ed to auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au

-----Message d'origine-----
De : auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au [mailto:auscope-geosciml-bounces at lists.arcs.org.au] De la part de Oliver.Raymond at ga.gov.au Envoyé : 9 août 2010 07:33 À : auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
Objet : [auscope-geosciml] FW: [OM2.0.swg] Statistical terms (mean, min, max) in SWE Common [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


 Forwading Ingo's reply... (could I get a show of hands of who is on the Geosciml email list and also on the OGC O&M email list?)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ingo Simonis [mailto:ingo.simonis at igsi.eu]
Sent: Monday, 9 August 2010 9:04 PM
To: Robin, Alexandre
Cc: Raymond Oliver; 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; auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au; om2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
Subject: Re: [OM2.0.swg] Statistical terms (mean, min, max) in SWE Common [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]


I like the idea of using extensions. Even though we define it in SweCommon, other SWE standards could use the same approach.

Cheers,
Ingo

On 09.08.2010, at 11:33, Robin, Alexandre wrote:

> 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#Compo
>> si
>> 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#Compo
>> si
>> 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]
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OM2.0.swg mailing list
> OM2.0.swg at lists.opengeospatial.org
> https://lists.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/om2.0.swg

_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml
_______________________________________________
auscope-geosciml mailing list
auscope-geosciml at lists.arcs.org.au
http://lists.arcs.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/auscope-geosciml



More information about the GeoSciML mailing list