Mike Botts – October 2008 1 Semantics and Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) OOSSI November 18, 2008 Dr. Mike Botts Principal Research Scientist.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
© Geospatial Research & Consulting Ingo Simonis Ingo Simonis Freelancer.
Advertisements

Mike Botts – Summer Open Geospatial Consortium Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) GEOINT Huntsville August 14, 2013 Dr. Mike Botts
AN ORGANISATION FOR A NATIONAL EARTH SCIENCE INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM Information modelling – tools Simon Cox.
Mike Botts – March Open Geospatial Consortium UNCLASSIFIED OGC Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) NATO STANAG Meetings Huntsville, AL March 2011.
I-Room : Integrating Intelligent Agents and Virtual Worlds.
UNCERTML - DESCRIBING AND COMMUNICATING UNCERTAINTY Matthew Williams
Service Oriented Sensor Web Xingchen Chu and Rajkumar Buyya University of Melbourne, Australia Presented by: Gerardo I. Simari CMSC828P – Fall 2006 Professor.
Presentation 7 part 2: SOAP & WSDL. Ingeniørhøjskolen i Århus Slide 2 Outline Building blocks in Web Services SOA SOAP WSDL (UDDI)
Pacific Island Countries GIS/RS User Conference 2010, Suva, November 2010 Sensor Web Enablement for the Pacific Vulnerability and adaptation of coastal.
Mike Botts – August Open Geospatial Consortium UNCLASSIFIED Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) Intro and V2.0 Directions April 2010 Dr. Mike Botts
Nov Copyright Galdos Systems Inc. November 2001 Geography Markup Language Enabling the Geo-spatial Web.
DCS Architecture Bob Krzaczek. Key Design Requirement Distilled from the DCS Mission statement and the results of the Conceptual Design Review (June 1999):
Systems Architecture, Fourth Edition1 Internet and Distributed Application Services Chapter 13.
Introduction to Web-Based Systems HTML, XML, and JavaScript.
Metadata (for the data users downstream) RFC GIS Workshop July 2007 NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC Documentation.
Page 1 LAITS Laboratory for Advanced Information Technology and Standards 9/6/04 Briefing on Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC)’s Web Services (OWS) Initiative.
Discussion and conclusion The OGC SOS describes a global standard for storing and recalling sensor data and the associated metadata. The standard covers.
Mike Botts – January SensorML and Processing September 2009 Mike Botts Botts Innovative Research, Inc.
Mike Botts – October OGC Sensor Web Enablement Airborne Application March 18, 2008 Dr. Mike Botts Principal Research Scientist.
Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) and SensorML January 2008
Luis Bermudez Southeastern Universities Research Association Carlos Rueda Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Moving Beyond the 10,000 Ways That Don't.
Mike Botts – October Open Geospatial Consortium Sensor Web Enablement GWG Plenary October 16, 2008 Dr. Mike Botts Principal Research.
Mike Botts – August Supporting QA/QC for Ocean Observations using Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) and SensorML August 2008 Mike Botts (UAH), Tony Cook.
Mike Botts – January Supporting QA/QC in Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) and SensorML February 2008 Mike Botts Principal Research.
Mobile Topic Maps for e-Learning John McDonald & Darina Dicheva Intelligent Information Systems Group Computer Science Department Winston-Salem State University,
1 OPeNDAP/ECHO Demo Integrating and Chaining services September, 2006 CEOS WGISS 22 Annapolis, MD.
Sensors, SWE and European spatial data initiatives – INSPIRE and GMES Brno, Radim Štampach, Ph.D.
IntroductionToSensorML Alexandre Robin – October 2006.
What is Information Modelling (and why do we need it in NEII…)? Dominic Lowe, Bureau of Meteorology, 29 October 2013.
CEOS WGISS, Hanoi May OSCAR Prototyping the sensor web Wyn Cudlip BNSC/QinetiQ Presentation to WGISS Hanoi May 2007 (Slides.
Service Oriented Architectures Presentation By: Clifton Sweeney November 3 rd 2008.
UNCERTML - DESCRIBING AND COMMUNICATING UNCERTAINTY WITHIN THE (SEMANTIC) WEB Matthew Williams
ResEau: A Water Portal SensorWeb Implementation National Information Strategies Division Strategic Information Integration Directorate Environment Canada.
Rupa Tiwari, CSci5980 Fall  Course Material Classification  GIS Encyclopedia Articles  Classification Diagram  Course – Encyclopedia Mapping.
® The importance of international standards for data exchange Denise McKenzie Executive Director, Communications & Outreach Open Geospatial Consortium.
1 Interoperability and a Spatial Web Portal April 20, 2007 Myra Bambacus NASA Applied Sciences Program Geosciences Interoperability Office.
NA-MIC National Alliance for Medical Image Computing UCSD: Engineering Core 2 Portal and Grid Infrastructure.
GRID Overview Internet2 Member Meeting Spring 2003 Sandra Redman Information Technology and Systems Center and Information Technology Research Center National.
RSISIPL1 SERVICE ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE (SOA) By Pavan By Pavan.
31 March 2009 MMI OntDev 1 Autonomous Mission Operations for Sensor Webs Al Underbrink, Sentar, Inc.
Breakout # 1 – Data Collecting and Making It Available Data definition “ Any information that [environmental] researchers need to accomplish their tasks”
1 Implementing QA/QC Standards for In Situ Ocean Sensors Using OGC-Sensor Web Enablement a.k.a. QARTOD to OGC a.k.a. Q2O Project Status Brief to NOAA IOOS.
© 2006, Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. The OGC Sensor Web Enablement framework Simon CoxMike Botts CSIRO Exploration & MiningNational Space Science &
Sensor Standards Harmonization Working Group Report Summary of Sensor Standards Harmonization Working Group (SSHWG) Meeting held on Sensor Standards Harmonization.
WIGOS Data model – standards introduction.
1 Registry Services Overview J. Steven Hughes (Deputy Chair) Principal Computer Scientist NASA/JPL 17 December 2015.
Challenges in the Business Digital Ecosystems Pierfranco Ferronato, Soluta.net DBE Principal Architect Digital Ecosystem Workshop, 18 May 2005 “Towards.
Scientific Workflows for the Sensor Web ICT for Earth Observation Anwar Vahed.
Data Assimilation Decision Making Using Sensor Web Enablement M. Goodman, G. Berthiau, H. Conover, X. Li, Y. Lu, M. Maskey, K. Regner, B. Zavodsky, R.
© 2005, Open Geospatial Consortium, Inc. CrisisGrid: Critical Infrastructure and Informatics for Emergency Response 4 May 2005 Mark Reichardt President.
Data Services Task Team WGISS-22 meeting Annapolis, the US, September 12th 2006 Shinobu Kawahito, JAXA/RESTEC.
Waves Formalize data dictionaries QC What is required to formalize? Defining quality assurance requirements Validating sensors In situ Currents Start data.
The Earth Information Exchange. Portal Structure Portal Functions/Capabilities Portal Content ESIP Portal and Geospatial One-Stop ESIP Portal and NOAA.
OSSIM Technology Overview Mark Lucas. “Awesome” Open Source Software Image Map (OSSIM)
Tutorial 1 Description of a Weather Station using SensorML Alexandre Robin
CEOS Working Group on Information System and Services (WGISS) Data Access Infrastructure and Interoperability Standards Andrew Mitchell - NASA Goddard.
EarthCube Integrative Activities: Cross-Domain Observational Metadata Environmental Sensing Network (X-DOMES) September 2015 – August 2017 Focusing on.
Botts – August 2004 Sensor Web Enablement Sensor Web Enablement WG (SWE-WG)
IPDA Registry Definitions Project Dan Crichton Pedro Osuna Alain Sarkissian.
Session: Towards systematically curating and integrating
Task 2.6 Eric Delory PLOCAN
Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) and Sensor Modeling Language (SensorML)
SWE and SensorML ESIP Summer Meeting July 2016 Durham, NC
Calibration information in OSCAR/Space and other OSCAR developments
X-DOMES: Cross Domain Observational Metadata for Environmental Sensing
Grid Services B.Ramamurthy 12/28/2018 B.Ramamurthy.
WGISS Connected Data Assets Oct 24, 2018 Yonsook Enloe
Enabling the business-based Internet of Things and Services
Project Status Brief to NOAA IOOS Program February 18, 2011
Presentation transcript:

Mike Botts – October Semantics and Sensor Web Enablement (SWE) OOSSI November 18, 2008 Dr. Mike Botts Principal Research Scientist University of Alabama in Huntsville

Helping the World to Communicate Geographically What is SWE? SWE is technology to enable the realization of Sensor Webs –much like TCP/IP, HTML, and HTTPD enabled the WWW SWE is a suite of standards from OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium) –3 standard XML encodings (SensorML, O&M, TML) –4 standard web service interfaces (SOS, SAS, SPS, WNS) SWE is a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) approach SWE is an open, consensus-based set of standards

Helping the World to Communicate Geographically Why SWE? Break down current stovepipes Enable interoperability not only within communities but between traditionally disparate communities –different sensor types: in-situ vs remote sensors, video, models, CBRNE –different disciplines: science, defense, intelligence, emergency management, utilities, etc. –different sciences: ocean, atmosphere, land, bio, target recognition, signal processing, etc. –different agencies: government, commercial, private, Joe Public Leverage benefits of open standards –competitive tool development –more abundant data sources –utilize efforts funded by others Backed by the Open Geospatial Consortium process –350+ members cooperating in consensus process –Interoperability Process testing –CITE compliance testing

Helping the World to Communicate Geographically What are the benefits of SWE? Sensor system agnostic - Virtually any sensor or model system can be supported Net-Centric, SOA-based –Distributed architecture allows independent development of services but enables on-the-fly connectivity between resources Semantically tied –Relies on online dictionaries and ontologies for semantics –Key to interoperability Traceability –observation lineage –quality of measurement support Implementation flexibility –wrap existing capabilities and sensors –implement services and processing where it makes sense (e.g. near sensors, closer to user, or in- between) –scalable from single, simple sensor to large sensor collections

Helping the World to Communicate Geographically Note: You are Down in the Dirt During this workshop, you are “down-in-the-dirt”, dealing with the details of XML, semantic dictionaries and ontologies, web services, etc. You are pioneers –Many of you may remember working at the level of HTML and HTTPD at the beginning of the WWW (some of you still may be working at that level) For SWE, help is on the way –Dictionaries being created –New implementations of SWE being added daily –Discovery of services and sensor coming on line (more slowly than desired) –Tools being developed (server, client, middleware) In the future you will: –Create SensorML and Observations without dealing with XML –Set up new services without programming –Discover sensors and observation through semantic relationships without worrying about ontologies –Pick your client(s) of choice for discovering, accessing, processing, fusing, and exploring observations intuitively

Mike Botts – November Tool Example: SensorML Table Viewer Provides simple view of all data in SensorML document Beta Version released Future version will support resolvable links to terms, as well as plotting of curves, display of images, etc Future versions will provide similar capabilities for Observations

Mike Botts – November Tool Example: SensorML Process Editors Currently, we diagram the process (right top) and then type the XML version; soon the XML will be generated from the diagram itself (right bottom) Currently, SensorML documents are edited in XML (left), but will soon be edited using human friendly view (below)

Mike Botts – January Incorporation of SensorML/SWE into Space Time Toolkit Space Time Toolkit has been retooled to be SensorML process chain executor + SLD stylers

Mike Botts – March Why are Semantics Important to SWE? SWE depends on “soft-typing” for properties and data –You will not find elements such as temperature, wave height, standard deviation, focal length, etc. hard typed within any of the schema –Observable properties, sensor characteristics, events, etc. ALL get their meaning through references to online dictionaries or ontologies Interoperability –You say tomato, I say tomato, but do we mean the same thing? If we both point to the same semantic definition, we can assume that we do. If we point to different semantic definitions, maybe we mean the same thing, maybe we don’t, but we hope that ontological relationships between the two will help us understand if and how they’re different Advanced discovery and exploitation –Example: find all measurements of temperature of the ocean –Example: find all sensors and measurements that can help me predict an algal bloom in the Gulf of Mexico –Example: are we heading toward an El Nino year?

Mike Botts – March How do we relate SWE to Semantics? SWE Common data schema –Used throughout SWE for defining data –e.g. used in Observations for defining observable properties (temperature, etc) –e.g. used in SensorML to define inputs, outputs, parameters, characteristics, capabilities, interface properties –e.g. used in Sensor Planning Service (SPS) to define tasking parameters In SWE Common, dictionaries and ontologies referenced in two pervasive attributes: –“xlink:role” and “xlink:arcrole” of a property e.g. –“definition” of a property value e.g. –Example of the two working together:

Mike Botts – March SWE Examples SensorML –Davis thermometerDavis thermometer –QC Process ChainQC Process Chain Observation –Weather measurementWeather measurement –Oceans ACDP Examples shown in SensorML PrettyView –Video Camera on UAVVideo Camera on UAV –MBARI CTDMBARI CTD

Mike Botts – March Need for Term Definitions in SensorML Observable properties / phenomena / deriveable properties (“urn:ogc:def:property:*” ) –temperature, radiance, species, exceedingOfThreshold, earthquake, SST, etc. –rotation angles, spectral curve, histogram, time-series, swath, etc. Identifiers and classifiers (“urn:ogc:def:identifierType:*” or “urn:ogc:def:property:*” ??) –Identifiers – longName, shortName, model number, serial number, wing ID, etc. –Classifiers – sensorType, intendedApplication, processType, etc. Sensor and process terms (“urn:ogc:def:property:*” ) –IFOV, focal length, slant angle, weight, etc. –Polynomial coefficients, matrix, etc. Role types (“urn:ogc:def:property:*” or “urn:ogc:def:role:*” ??) –Expert, manufacturer, integrator, etc. –Specification document, productImage, algorithm, etc. Capabilities, Characteristics, Interfaces, etc. (“urn:ogc:def:property:*” ) –Width, height, material composition, etc. –Ground resolution, dynamic range, peak wavelength, etc. –RS-232, USB-2, bitSize, baud rate, base64, etc. Sensor and process events (“urn:ogc:def:eventType:*” or “urn:ogc:def:property:*” ??) –Deployment, decommissioning, calibration, etc.

Mike Botts – March URL or URN ? The SWE schema doesn’t care; both are valid URL (e.g. –con: “messier” –con: not persistent (i.e. can break when machine or domain change) –pro: unique identifier of resource –pro: currently resolvable through DNS URN (e.g. urn:blah:blah) –pro: “cleaner” –pro: unique identifier of resource –pro: persistent (in theory) –con: must be resolved using a registry or a known urn resolver Can have both (i.e. a URN that resolves to a URL)

Mike Botts – March Relevant Links Open Geospatial Consortium – SWE Web Pages – SWE Forum – SensorML Forum –