[Seavox] Devices

[Roy Lowry]

Dear All,

I'm now thinking about grasping the nettle of putting together a 'device_type' ontology.  There must be dozens of lists of this type around.  Most are flat or a 2-level simple hierarchy (usually implemented using compound terms e.g. bottle:Niskin) and  seem to have entity definition problems, usually with platforms or even parameters sneaking into lists primarily composed of sensors.  Definitions are either absent or extermemly parochial such as 'net used by Alain Bedo in the BOFS project'. The lists are the result of evolution rather than design which means that granularity is about as inconsistent as it could possibly be.  We need something better in BODC and I'm guessing we're not alone.

As a start to the process I thought I'd like to gather opinions on the nature of the lists that should make up the ontology.  Here's my very rough straw man, in what is roughly a hierarchical order.

device_category (sample collector, remote sensor, probe, sample processor, sample analyser.....)
device_discipline (terms like SeaDataNet vocabulary L081 - biological oceanography, physical oceanography etc.)
device_class (sonar, tide gauge
device_subclass (single-beam echosounder, multibea, stilling well, bottom pressure recorder, bubbler gauge....
device_type (something identified by a manufacturer and model number)
device_instance (something identified by a serial number)

I think device_instance is somewhere where I don't want to go - a global inventory of scientific instrumentation is both too much work and serves little purpose.  So, I suggest we leave that as a local - and far from trivial - issue.

So, I declare the debate open.  Once we have a set of lists we can then set about the real fun of populating them.

Cheers, Roy.