[Seavox] Devices: a new vocabulary for SeaVoX

[Nan Galbraith]

  What I'd find especially helpful would be if the links to the instrument
specs were presented in a slightly different way. Using the ever-useful
example of the SBE 37, the URL for the spec sheet is provided, but
is buried in the definition:

>  <skos:definition>The SBE 37 MicroCAT is a high accuracy conductivity
>  and temperature recorder with an optional pressure sensor designed
>  for depolyment on moorings. The IM model has an inductive modem for
>  real-time data transmission plus internal flash memory data storage.
>  Further information may be found on the BODC document server at URL
>  http://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/documents/nodb/113079/.</skos:definition>

The document containing the specs, 113079, although it's html, is
still useful for humans (of course, it'd be great if it were xml, but 
I'm being
realistic, I hope). It would be really helpful if, for instruments with 
available
spec sheets, this link were a separate field, so it could be extracted more
easily. I don't know how many of the instruments in this list have spec
sheets available in html, or what other formats are being used, but having
a standard field that points to them would make this more useful, I
think.

On the other hand, unless all the spec docs are held at BODC, that
poses a problem with maintenance - but that's the case whether these
are clearly exposed by having their own fields, or not.

Thanks -
Nan


On 9/29/10 12:03 PM, Lowry, Roy K wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Broad categories are held in L05 and mapped to L221 by narrowMatch 
> relationships. The only ‘broadening’ within the list is where names 
> are known to different levels of detail.
>
> Putting a semantic model behind the naming is a good idea: it’s what 
> I’ve done with parameters. But as you say, it’s work and unless a 
> volunteer steps forward, it’s unlikely to happen to existing content 
> this year. However, in the mean time I’ll make sure that if content 
> containing this level of structure is supplied then it will be 
> preserved. Getting the MBARI list with structured names would be good 
> for both content extension and providing an example of the structuring.
>
> My purpose for the list is to provide a vocabulary for tagging data 
> objects with their ‘data production tool or tools’. Our system uses 
> this vocabulary in a structure with ordered workflow so a series can 
> be tagged ‘water bottle then autoanalyser’. However, I’m guessing 
> others may have additional applications.
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
> *From:* John Graybeal [mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com]
> *Sent:* 29 September 2010 16:36
> *To:* Lowry, Roy K
> *Cc:* seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
> *Subject:* Re: [Seavox] Devices: a new vocabulary for SeaVoX
>
> Yes, with some caveats:
>
> It wasn't clear from the email, but a casual look at the list suggests 
> it *only* contains instrument names, not any broader instrument 
> categories. I think that's important to keep those two lists separate, 
> to avoid conflating them.
>
> I think each name corresponds to these things: (a) manufacturer; (b) 
> model; (c) casual name that blends (a) and (b) with a function. The 
> list becomes more useful if (a), (b), and the function all come from 
> controlled vocabularies, and are separately described within each 
> term. I know that's work, I'm just predicting it's work that will be 
> done sooner or later, and normalizing the formation of the list now 
> will save you (or many others) time later.
>
> MBARI has a list of such instruments broken down in this way, it could 
> probably be provided as well, which gets back to Nan's point about the 
> purpose of the list and the methods for contributing to it.
>
> John
>
> .
>
> On Sep 29, 2010, at 00:57, Lowry, Roy K wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> SeaVoX traffic resembles buses. Nothing for ages then two messages 
> come together!
>
> There has been a project in BODC over the past couple of years to tag 
> data with more detailed device metadata, using actual instrument names 
> rather than instrument categories to populate ‘data production tool’ 
> fields in metadata. Thus ‘Aanderaa RCM4/5’ is now used instead of 
> ‘Savonious rotor current meter’. When I looked at the metadatabase we 
> were building to support this it became apparent that it fitted very 
> comfortably into the vocabulary data model and that the concepts in it 
> could be mapped to the ‘SeaDataNet device categories’ (the L05x group 
> of lists) to form quite a handy thesaurus, which I have exposed 
> through the NERC Vocabulary Server as 
> http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/list/L221
>
> In parallel, the IODE GE-BiCh expert group – largely the work of Mary 
> Kennedy - has compiled a comprehensive list of nets and plankton 
> samplers that would fit neatly together with the BODC list. Mary and 
> Hernan Garcia of USNODC have also recently been working on compiling a 
> catalogue of water samplers, which could be included.
>
> So, my proposal is that the L221 vocabulary be transferred from BODC 
> to SeaVoX governance, merged with the GE-BiCh contributions and 
> further developed as a joint effort by SeaVoX. Is this an acceptable 
> proposition?
>
> Cheers, Roy.
>
>

-- 
*******************************************************
* Nan Galbraith                        (508) 289-2444 *
* Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *
* Woods Hole, MA 02543                                *
*******************************************************