Include Campaign? - Githubissues

KathiSchleidt commented 4 years ago

The concept of a campaign has remained at the edges of our data model, never quite out of scope, but never fully analyzed or integrated. We have included the Platform concept from SOSA together with the association to Observer (Sensor in SOSA/SSN), but integrated the Deployment concept differently (in O&M V3 Deployment has become as association class between Platform and Observer whereas in SSN Deployment is a stand-alone class linking to Platform and Sensor (Observer)) Now as we've reached the end of our working time, there have been some requests to include the campaign concept; partially motivated by ambitions to increase utilization of O&M within the biodiversity sector long put off by the sensor focus. Based on discussions in Friday's texting session we've made on more attempt at including Campaign, proposal as follows:

Core Platform class has been renamed to "Host" as this is more in line with the associations defined.
- Definition: a grouping of observers for a specific reason
Platform is derived from Host
- Definition: an entity (physical) grouping observers (requirement for air quality monitoring under a directive)
Campaign is derived from Host
- Definition: a formal (non-physical) grouping of observers (ex: biodiv survey campaign for assessing data on XXX, a domain network of stations monitoring the same Aquifer))
- Would be nice if would also cover programmes/activities
Deployment associates Host and its subtypes to Observer
- Definition: purpose and timeframe of the association between Observer and Host

Rapid feedback would be much welcome to support our decision to include or drop the campaign concept!

sgrellet commented 4 years ago

It might me worth mentionning that we agreed what we wrote during our Friday session for 'Campaign' above encompassed the notions of Campaign but also monitoring Network and spread to programme/activities. Maybe we could solve this non naming it Campaign but with a term of a broader meaning

KathiSchleidt commented 4 years ago

To differentiate Campaign from Network - I see the following differentiation:

A Campaign triggers activities, the activities would not be performed without the campaign
A Network groups like minded activities, that may already be operational

KathiSchleidt commented 4 years ago

Platform is PHYSICAL
Campaign is ORGANIZATIONAL

sgrellet commented 4 years ago

+1 on the clean split between physical & organizational.

Organizational encompasses : campaign, programme, monitoring activity, network (not speaking about physical network of sensors here).

But I am not at ease naming the organizational part 'Campaign' to allow all this. Any other name candidate ?

KathiSchleidt commented 4 years ago

Campaign: crusade to identify and collect unicorns!

sgrellet commented 4 years ago

Poposals for alternative names of this organizational grouping: ActivitySet, ObserverSet

lvdbrink commented 4 years ago

I am not happy with the part of the model concerning Host, Platform, Campaign, and Deployment. I was away when the latest changes to this part were made and have only just now looked closely at this part of the model in its latest iterations.

Are Host, Platform, Campaign, and Deployment part of the Core? They seem too detailed to be part of the Core to me.
Platform and Campaign seem to me to be two concepts that are too different to be subclasses of one generalization Host. The platform is a physical thing that observers are attached to / carried by / mounted on. The campaign is an organizational structure. A project, or a network (but not a physical network).
The term campaign usually refers to a set of activities. But a host is not a set of activities, nor is a network.
In my opinion and as I understand the model we don’t need the Campaign class; we can already make any kind of grouping of observations we want using the Collection class.

I would be in favour of dropping the campaign concept.

KathiSchleidt commented 4 years ago

Admittedly the "Host, Platform, Campaign, and Deployment" is the least thought through part of the model, a lot happened towards the end that we didn't quite digest properly.

To the Campaign background, the idea came from biodiversity campaigns, sending humans into the field to look for stuff; we saw the parallel between screwing some Sensors to a Platform and tasking human Observers in the frame of such a campaign, thus thought to add to avoid endless questions on if "humans can be sensors".

I do like the fact that Deployment has become a FT of its own (was an association table between Host and Observer), but to my feeling adding this aspect made the already fuzzy distinction between Platform and Campaign as specializations of Host even fuzzier. While we haven't had time to discuss, we have shared the gut feeling that Deployment could also be specialized to some sort of campaign-like activity, but stopped thinking further due to the looming deadline.

I wouldn't mind dropping both Platform and Campaign, just leaving Host with a description that can be both physical or organizational unit Observers can be deployed to.

sgrellet commented 4 years ago

+1 on the

gut feeling
fact that Campaign discussion could need more time for things to settle down around Campaign, monitoring Network etc notions...
only leaving Host

Leaving Host would allow mapping sosa:Platform to it, however I feel the Host concept is broader than sosa:Platform

lvdbrink commented 4 years ago

+1 to only leaving Host for now. I realize that I was late with this comment, but doing the best I can with limited time to spend on this...

On 28 Sep 2020, at 18:22, sgrellet notifications@github.com wrote:

+1 on the

gut feeling
fact that Campaign discussion could need more time for things to settle down around Campaign, monitoring Network etc notions...
only leaving Host

Leaving Host would allow mapping sosa:Platform to it, however I feel the Host concept is broader than sosa:Platform

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/opengeospatial/om-swg/issues/65#issuecomment-700139961, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB4TKWYB7HQZ3QACXJKKKPLSICZ5JANCNFSM4QPUSTLA.

KathiSchleidt commented 4 years ago

Then would say we're agreed 👍 @ilkkarinne can you make the necessary changes in the model, I'll do my best to take out of the document

ilkkarinne commented 4 years ago

Ok, I agree the Campaign is rather weak.

Just to make this 100% clear, we want to remove both Campaign & Platform and all their realizations from the UML model, but leave the Host?

Ilkka

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:10 PM Kathi Schleidt notifications@github.com wrote:

Then would say we're agreed 👍 @ilkkarinne https://github.com/ilkkarinne can you make the necessary changes in the model, I'll do my best to take out of the document

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/opengeospatial/om-swg/issues/65#issuecomment-700226558, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATV6QKFPAHHZSELR6SRD7TSIDNS3ANCNFSM4QPUSTLA .

-- IIkka Rinne Founder, Head of Customer Experience and Interoperability, Spatineo Oy Project lead, ISO Observations and measurements Standard (19156) revision Chair, OGC Observations and measurements Standards Working Group Chair, OGC Quality of Service and Experience Domain Working Group

Email: ilkka.rinne@spatineo.com Phone: +358 50 523 8974 Office: Kellosilta 2 D, FI-00520 Helsinki, Finland www.spatineo.com, twitter.com/#!/spatineo www.linkedin.com/company/spatineo-inc

ilkkarinne commented 4 years ago

..and we will probably want to add a concrete Host feature type as well in the Basic Observations, correct?

Ilkka

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:43 PM Ilkka Rinne ilkka.rinne@spatineo.com wrote:

Ok, I agree the Campaign is rather weak.

Just to make this 100% clear, we want to remove both Campaign & Platform and all their realizations from the UML model, but leave the Host?

Ilkka

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:10 PM Kathi Schleidt notifications@github.com wrote:

Then would say we're agreed 👍 @ilkkarinne https://github.com/ilkkarinne can you make the necessary changes in the model, I'll do my best to take out of the document

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/opengeospatial/om-swg/issues/65#issuecomment-700226558, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATV6QKFPAHHZSELR6SRD7TSIDNS3ANCNFSM4QPUSTLA .

-- IIkka Rinne Founder, Head of Customer Experience and Interoperability, Spatineo Oy Project lead, ISO Observations and measurements Standard (19156) revision Chair, OGC Observations and measurements Standards Working Group Chair, OGC Quality of Service and Experience Domain Working Group

Email: ilkka.rinne@spatineo.com Phone: +358 50 523 8974 Office: Kellosilta 2 D, FI-00520 Helsinki, Finland www.spatineo.com, twitter.com/#!/spatineo www.linkedin.com/company/spatineo-inc

-- IIkka Rinne Founder, Head of Customer Experience and Interoperability, Spatineo Oy Project lead, ISO Observations and measurements Standard (19156) revision Chair, OGC Observations and measurements Standards Working Group Chair, OGC Quality of Service and Experience Domain Working Group

Email: ilkka.rinne@spatineo.com Phone: +358 50 523 8974 Office: Kellosilta 2 D, FI-00520 Helsinki, Finland www.spatineo.com, twitter.com/#!/spatineo www.linkedin.com/company/spatineo-inc

ilkkarinne commented 4 years ago

The UML model now updated: Campaign and Platform zapped, Host feature type added

KathiSchleidt commented 4 years ago

Counter-zapped in the doc, case closed!

opengeospatial / om-swg

Include Campaign? #65