[Fiware-ngsi] Semantic Extension of the the PubSub GE

[Tobias Jacobs]

Hi Fano, 

Please find my comments inline below.

- Tobias

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Tobias Jacobs [mailto:Tobias.Jacobs at neclab.eu] Envoyé : mercredi 6 février 2013 16:53 À : RAMPARANY Fano OLNC/OLPS; Fermín Galán Márquez; Moltchanov Boris; ARTUSIO Laurent OLNC/OLPS Cc : fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : RE: [Fiware-ngsi] Semantic Extension of the the PubSub GE

Hi Fano,

I think it is a good idea to use attributeDomainName as an indicator of from which Domain Ontology the attributeNames come from. So that for each attributeDomain there is a fixed set of possible attributeNames.

Note that the attributeName fields itself could be full ontology references, so even without usage of attributeDomainName the ontology used can be made clear.

	[FR]:  if I understand well it's up to the context provider to provide a attributeDomainName, and it is not mandatory for it to do so. Conversly, The context consumer can't specify this "parameter" in its request. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

[TJ] Actually in the queryContextRequest you can also ask for an AttributeDomain using a string in the AttributeList field. 
But yes, in the queryContextResponse it is not mandatory to specify the attributeDomainName field.


I also think that the ontologies to use should come from the use case projects. This is why we call the enablers generic, right? 

	[FR]: This is also our point of view. However, there might be ontologies that are less "specific" than others. For instance, those dealing with "time" and "space" (such as an event ontologies which defines relations such as "occursBefore"  and  geolocation ontologies that define properties such as "longitude" and "latitude") will be useful for many IoT domain applications I presume.

[TJ] Sure, if some base ontology can be agreed on, this would be good.



In general, it would be good to standardize the translation of RDF <--> NGSI...do you already have mature concepts for how to do this, and is it documented somewhere?

	[FR]: Once we have a running implementation and have validated it with some real data (NGSI queryResponse XML docs) over few ontologies, we will for sure explain our approach and document it. At this time we are still exploring alternative solutions. A viable one is still to be found and to be compared with the others.

[TJ] OK. In general NEC is happy to be included in the discussion.

Best
Tobias

-----Original Message-----
From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of fano.ramparany at orange.com
Sent: Mittwoch, 6. Februar 2013 11:31
To: Fermín Galán Márquez; Moltchanov Boris; ARTUSIO Laurent OLNC/OLPS
Cc: fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-ngsi] Semantic Extension of the the PubSub GE

Hi Fermin Boris and all,

Thank you for renaming this thread (I've removed the word last "semantic"  which was a typo from my side).
Thank you for the clarification you brought. In my current understanding the "scope" element in the ContextML language correspond to the "attributeDomainName" in the NGSI data structure representation. Could you give your opinion about this Boris?

Regards,

Fano


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Fermín Galán Márquez [mailto:fermin at tid.es] Envoyé : mardi 5 février 2013 18:40 À : Moltchanov Boris; RAMPARANY Fano OLNC/OLPS; ARTUSIO Laurent OLNC/OLPS Cc : fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : Semantic Extension of the the PubSub GE semantic

Dear Boris, Fano, Laurent,

I think this discussion is interesting (and, we have a change I will read the emails on deep and try to provide feedback). However, in order to keep email threads clean, I have renamed its subject, so we can leave the "JSON" subject for emails actually related with the discussion on NGSI JSON (if any).

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,

------
Fermín

El 05/02/2013 11:42, Moltchanov Boris escribió:
> Dear Fano,
>
> I'm here just to give few clarifications about the semantic meaning in the TI's implementation of the Pub/Sub GE.
>
> a. currently the broker does not support the application domain 
> meta-data neither in its data structure nor in the requests;
>
> b. once the NGSI-9 (context providers operations and in particular
> registry) will be implemented we're going to enable to NGSI providers 
> to claim to the broker what the applications domain context they are 
> running; therefore for those providers the broker will know what is 
> the application domain at the registration phase. And any requests 
> coming from a consumer (the SPARQL converter as well) will be treated 
> regardless of the application domain within the request but the 
> application domain of the provider, which will return requested 
> context data (NGSI "scope" value) with its own assigned application 
> domain;
>
> c. no specific dynamic application domains will be supported by the ContextML/CQL therefore we're prone to assign any by default in our wrapper (on in SPARQL converter) or assign it by the broker instance's configuration.
>
> If you need any clarifications or further details please let me know.
>
> Best Regards,
> Boris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
> [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of 
> fano.ramparany at orange.com
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 7:44 PM
> To: Fermín Galán Márquez; fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
> Subject: Re: [Fiware-ngsi] JSON
>
> Hi,
>
> In the context of the development of the semantic extension of the the PubSub GE semantic, we are developing a NGSI/XML to RDF/XML translator. To start with we are focusing on the NGSI/XML queryContextResponse...xml messages related to geolocation. We plan to use the "attributeDomainName" element as an hint to identify a geolocation context information.
>
> We have a first question about this: is there a reason for introducing 2 different values of this element related to geolocation? Namely: parcelGeo, geolocation? Why don't we simply use geolocation?
>
> More generally, could we assume that the value of the "attributeDomainName" could be used as a way to anticipate what the "contextAttribute" names (in the "contextAttributeList") will be?
>
> If it is the case, we can use this element to identify which ontology the target rdf will comply to and to use the corresponding "contextAttribute"s names as properties of the ontology or to find in an existing ontology the mapping between the properties of this ontology and the "contextAttribute" names.
>
> Apart from geolocation, in the examples we have found messages tagged with "parcelStep" "attribute DomainName". We assume that we should elaborate the corresponding RDF in compliance with some supply chain ontology.
>
> It would be interesting to do this translation exercise, with more NGSI/XML examples coming from UC projects which are using the PubSub GE, although the policy we currently foresee is that each UC project define its domain ontologies and we supply the project with a method to automate the transformation of the NGSI/XML content into RDF complying to this domain ontology.
>
> Any feedback on this is more than welcome,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Fano
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu
> [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Fermín 
> Galán Márquez Envoyé : mercredi 30 janvier 2013 15:32 À :
> fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu Objet : [Fiware-ngsi] JSON
>
> Hi,
>
> We have a bunch of XML examples for our NGSI binding at 
> https://forge.fi-ware.eu/scmrepos/svn/iot/trunk/schemes/xml_examples/
> but, what about JSON? Is there any similar bunch of example available in some place, please?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,
>
> ------
> Fermín
>
>


________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Fiware-ngsi mailing list
Fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
http://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ngsi

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.