Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: Call for consensus: WG item adoption - HELD Measurement

From: Richard L. Barnes ^lt;rbarnes@bbn.com>
Date: Mon Jun 28 2010 - 14:30:18 EDT

Are there any public specifications for OMXML that you could point us
to?

On Jun 28, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Carl Reed wrote:

> Richard -
>
> Yes, I guess that is what I was suggesting. OMXML does allow very
> lightweight and simple encodings. OMXML allows one to rigorously
> encode observations and measurements ranging from satellite sensors
> to simple in building temperature sensors - and everything in
> between. I am sure that Simon (O&M editor) would be happy to help
> define any such simple O&M schema or mappings.
>
> Cheers
>
> Carl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard L. Barnes
> To: Carl Reed
> Cc: Brian Rosen ; geopriv@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: Call for consensus: WG item adoption -
> HELD Measurement
>
> Geez, Carl, verbose much?
>
> I agree with your general point that we should keep semantics
> aligned, but it might make sense to specify a more compact form of
> the specific measurements needed for positioning. Sort of how we've
> now defined GML mappings for the DHCP and GEO URI location formats.
>
> --Richard
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2010, at 12:33 PM, Carl Reed wrote:
>
>> As the semantics of measurement and observation have been
>> harmonized with OGC/ISO standards, I have no problem with HELD
>> measurement moving forward. That siad, I should add that for future
>> work in which observations and their related properties (such as
>> measure) are to be modeled and encoded, I would encourage the group
>> to consider the OGC Observations and Measurements standards. A
>> revision of the current standard will soon be an ISO standard as an
>> OGC standard. The standard consists of two parts: An abstract model
>> and also the associated encoding schema (OMXML). An example is below.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Carl
>>
>> The following could be made simpler but instead includes
>> information about the temperature at the time the observation was
>> produced, information about the processes related to the
>> observation, and so forth.
>>
>> <om:OM_Observation
>> gml:id="obsTest1"
>> xmlns:om="http://www.opengis.net/om/2.0"
>> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>> xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
>> xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml/3.2"
>> xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.opengis.net/om/2.0 http://schemas.opengis.net/om/2.0/observation.xsd
>> ">
>>
>> <gml:description>Observation test instance: fruit mass</
>> gml:description>
>> <gml:name>Observation test 1</gml:name>
>> <om:type xlink:href="http://www.opengis.net/def/observationType/OGC-OM/2.0/OM_Measurement
>> "/>
>> <om:phenomenonTime>
>> <gml:TimeInstant
>> gml:id="ot1t">
>> <gml:timePosition>2005-01-11T16:22:25.00</gml:timePosition>
>> </gml:TimeInstant>
>> </om:phenomenonTime>
>> <om:resultTime xlink:href="#ot1t"/>
>> <!-- a notional URL identifying a procedure ... -->
>> <om:procedure
>> xlink:href="http://www.example.org/register/process/scales34.xml"/>
>> <!-- environmental conditions during measurement -->
>> <om:parameter>
>> <om:NamedValue>
>> <om:name xlink:href="http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/ontology/property.owl#Temperature
>> "/>
>> <om:value xsi:type="gml:MeasureType" uom="Cel">22.3</om:value>
>> </om:NamedValue>
>> </om:parameter>
>> <!-- a notional URN identifying the observed property -->
>> <om:observedProperty
>> xlink:href="http://sweet.jpl.nasa.gov/2.0/phys.owl#Mass"/>
>> <!-- a notional WFS call identifying the object regarding which
>> the observation was made -->
>> <om:featureOfInterest
>> xlink:href="http://wfs.example.org?request=getFeature&amp;featureid=fruit37f
>> "/>
>>
>> <om:result
>> xsi:type="gml:MeasureType"
>> uom="kg">0.28</om:result>
>> <!-- The XML Schema type of the result is indicated using the
>> value of the xsi:type attribute -->
>>
>> </om:OM_Observation>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Richard L. Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com>
>> To: "Brian Rosen" <br@brianrosen.net>
>> Cc: <geopriv@ietf.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Fwd: Call for consensus: WG item adoption
>>
>> > <hat type="individual"/>
>> >
>> > FWIW, what you're asking w.r.t. -measurements is basically what it
>> > already does. Each measurement type is in its own namespace, as is
>> > the measurements container itself. So in principle, you could re-
>> use
>> > these data structure elsewhere.
>> >
>> > Related: I think -measurements is a very high-priority item. It is
>> > needed to bring HELD to feature-parity with some of the most
>> commonly-
>> > used location protocols on the Internet (e.g., the Google and
>> Skyhook
>> > location protocols).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jun 27, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Brian Rosen wrote:
>> >
>> >> I am in favor of adopting relative location and deref protocol.
>> >>
>> >> I am sanguine about -measurements. I don't think measurements are
>> >> tied to a protocol. So, if I had my druthers, I'd define a
>> protocol
>> >> independent mechanism and then define transports of that mechanism
>> >> for various protocols. However, since I don't have cycles
>> available
>> >> to do that, and holding up the draft is not reasonable for that
>> >> reason, I can't stand in the way of adopting it.
>> >>
>> >> Brian
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> We've had very little response to this call for consensus. If you
>> >>> have an opinion either way about adopting these three documents
>> as
>> >>> working group items, please send it to the list by tomorrow
>> >>> (Monday, June 28).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> Alissa
>> >>>
>> >>> Begin forwarded message:
>> >>>
>> >>>> From: Alissa Cooper <acooper@cdt.org>
>> >>>> Date: June 22, 2010 12:46:44 PM BST
>> >>>> To: geopriv@ietf.org
>> >>>> Subject: [Geopriv] Call for consensus: WG item adoption
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Since we've progressed a number of WG items recently, we have
>> >>>> space in our queue for some new ones. I'd like to make a call
>> for
>> >>>> consensus about adopting the following three documents as
>> GEOPRIV
>> >>>> work items:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1) draft-thomson-geopriv-relative-location-01
>> >>>> 2) draft-thomson-geopriv-held-measurements-06
>> >>>> 3) draft-winterbottom-geopriv-deref-protocol-03
>> >>>>
>> >>>> These were all among the documents that received expressions of
>> >>>> support from the working group at IETF 77 [1]. The top two have
>> >>>> been recently revised to address feedback from the meeting, the
>> >>>> list, and design team work.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please send your responses about each document to the list no
>> >>>> later than Monday, June 28.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Alissa
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg08428.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Geopriv mailing list
>> >>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Geopriv mailing list
>> >>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Geopriv mailing list
>> >> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Geopriv mailing list
>> > Geopriv@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>> >
>
>

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:30:18 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 28 2010 - 14:30:43 EDT