Subject: [Geopriv] Simple draft: continuous values in presence

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:14:39 -0600

Folks who are interested in putting location in presence, please read and provide feedback on this draft in SIMPLE.

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-simple-cont-presence-val-req>

Ta,
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Carl Reed" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:40:19 -0700

Martin -

I have not yet this document in detail - just a quick browse.

However, as I learn more and more about sensor systems (a result of the 
extensive standards work and implementation of sensor interface and 
description standards being done in the OGC community), I have a feeling 
that much of what you are describing has to some extent already been stated 
as part of some sensor standard. For example, the entire concept of 
"triggering" based on some set of rules. For example, the OGC SensorML 
standard can be used to define both the characteristics and the process 
model for a sensor, such as weather sensor (in-situ) or a mobile device 
(dynamic). The process model defines the "how" of how an observation is 
processed by the sensor system. This process can include rules related to 
time, measurement range, locations, combinations of all of these in order to 
specify how observations are sampled from a continuous stream.

There is also considerable work being done using SensorML WRT expressing 
data quality and provenance of the observations.

Also, we should make sure that the terminology is consistent with existing 
sensor standards.  The following is from the OGC and ISO community:

.Phenomenon: Phenomenon is associated with an identifiable object, which is 
the feature of interest of the observation
.
.Observation: An act through which a number, term or other symbol is 
assigned to a phenomenon
.
.Measurement (noun): An observation whose result is a measure
.
.Measure: value described using a numeric amount with a scale or using a 
scalar reference system
.
.So, Phenomenon = WIND, Observation is the "act" of the wind gauge, 
Measurement = Wind Speed, Measure is 20 KPH
There is an OGC standard called Observations and Measurements that may be of 
use. This standard is now also in the process of becoming an ISO standard.

I may be off base here but do want to make sure that we at least have a 
common and consistent use of the semantics and vocabularies of how we 
describe a sensor and describe and define the observation/measurements 
returned by a sensor.

Cheers

Carl

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:14 AM
Subject: [Geopriv] Simple draft: continuous values in presence

> Folks who are interested in putting location in presence, please read and 
> provide feedback on this draft in SIMPLE.
>