[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-based-standards] "Ontology-based Standards" contribution t

To: "'ontology-based-standards'" <ontology-based-standards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Steve Ray <steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:29:34 -0700
Message-id: <525424e1.a9f6b60a.63dd.ffffa571@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>


            I just scanned through your reference [1] and was quite impressed. Great job.



- Steve


Steven R. Ray, Ph.D.

Distinguished Research Fellow

Carnegie Mellon University

NASA Research Park

Building 23 (MS 23-11)

P.O. Box 1
Moffett Field, CA 94305-0001

Email:    steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx

Phone: (650) 587-3780

Cell:      (202) 316-6481

Skype: steverayconsulting



From: ontology-based-standards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-based-standards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Brandt
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 8:00 AM
To: ontology-based-standards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Peter Yim
Subject: [ontology-based-standards] "Ontology-based Standards" contribution to mini-series session 4 open discussion


Dear Peter, Dear all,

I first would like to thank the organizers of the session for doing a great job of initiating these sessions as well as each time delivering an interesting agenda!

Unfortunately I am not able to attend the upcoming session. Therefore I would like to contribute to the open discussion with the following:

Resulting from the PhD-research that I am currently conducting, we have proposed an ontology, ContoExam, to support semantic interoperability in sensor network - sensor applications [1], that addresses not only quantities and their measurements (as defined by the VIM3 [2]) but extends this to include quantities that cannot be expressed in magnitudes, e.g., examinations of properties such as blood type, as proposed by Dybkaer [3]. In addition, we included context [4] since that is highly relevant to support correct interpretation towards the use of the quantity/property.

Note that this work should be considered "research" and not a standard, or in the process of being standardized. Still both points, i.c., (i) the VIM baseline might prove too narrow, and (ii) the need for context, may be pertinent to what the QUOMOS ontology standard should/could deliver.

If you might have questions to these points I'm happy to answer these offline. I wish you a fruitful session and expect to collaborate with you the next session again!




Ir. P. (Paul) Brandt (1,2)

1: Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research TNO, Delft, The Netherlands

2: Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

+31 (0)88 866 70 56



Abstract of our paper [1] - Much effort has been spent on the optimization of sensor networks, mainly concerning their performance and power efficiency. Furthermore, open communication protocols for the exchange of sensor data have been developed and widely adopted, making sensor data widely available for software applications. However, less attention has been given to the interoperability of sensor networks and sensor network applications at a semantic level. This hinders the reuse of sensor networks in different applications and the evolution of existing sensor networks and their applications. The main contribution of this paper is an ontology-based approach and architecture to address this problem. We developed an ontology that covers concepts regarding examinations as well as measurements, including the circumstances in which the examination and measurement have been performed. The underlying architecture secures a loose coupling at the semantic level to facilitate reuse and evolution. The ontology has the potential of supporting not only correct interpretation of sensor data, but also ensuring its appropriate use in accordance with the purpose of a given sensor network application. The ontology has been specialized and applied in a remote patient monitoring example, demonstrating the aforementioned potential in the e-health domain.


 [1]         P. Brandt, T. Basten, S. Stuijk, V. Bui, P. de Clercq, L. F. Pires, and M. van Sinderen, “Semantic interoperability in sensor applications”, in 2013 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, SSCI 2013. Proceedings, Computational Intelligence in Healthcare and e-health, IEEE Symposium on (CICARE2013), 2013. (http://www.es.ele.tue.nl/~tbasten/papers/CICARE2013%20-%20Brandt%20et%20al%20-%20Semantic%20interoperability%20in%20sensor%20applications%20-%20final%20version.pdf)

[2]          “JCGM 200 : 2008 International vocabulary of metrology — Basic and general concepts and associated terms ( VIM )”, in Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM/WG 2) - International Bureau of Weights and Measures, Paris, France, 2008.

[3]          R. Dybkaer, An Ontology on Property for Physical, Chemical, and Biological Systems. Copenhagen, Denmark: Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 2004.

[4]          P. Dockhorn Costa, G. Guizzardi, J. A. Almeida, L. F. Pires, and M. van Sinderen, “Situations in Conceptual Modeling of Context”, 10th IEEE Int Ent Dist Obj Comp Conf WS (EDOCW'06), 2006.

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-based-standards/  
Subscribe: mailto:ontology-based-standards-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologyBasedStandards/  
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyBasedStandards        (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>