[Seavox] L06 extension

Tue Mar 24 15:01:35 GMT 2015

Hi Nan,

The world of Mike Mercury, Mitch, Professor Beaker and Supercar!!! Seriously though, I think you need to look at at L06 as a whole - medium is one of the primary criteria for platform differentiation. L06 is in heavy operational use so change on the scale of abandoning medium as a criterion isn't an option. Should we get trans-media platforms then they would either need their own category or a data model that allowed linkage to multiple L06 concepts.

The latter is the approach I'm taking with instruments. Usage metadata labelling is done with L22 - an SBE-39 is an SBE-39 no matter how it is used. Categorisation of instruments (and platforms for that matter), such as the L05 vocabulary, is a tool for discovery metadata, not usage metadata and so we can map SBE-39 to multiple categories - say 'air temperature sensor' and 'water temperature sensor'.  This means that both types of SBE-39 deployment are discovered when either term is entered in the search.  Downside is that the user will get extra hits, but these may be filtered out by another discovery facet e.g. parameter. I would argue that instrument isn't a particularly useful search criterion, but users searching for data seem to like it, so we provide it.

Cheers, Roy.

From: Nan Galbraith [mailto:ngalbraith at whoi.edu]
Sent: 24 March 2015 14:04
To: seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Seavox] L06 extension

Hi again, Roy (and all)

A minor, maybe even frivolous, point: is it a given that a vehicle is limited to
either water or air, or will there be a time when drones can go underwater, or
move across land?

I'm raising this point because we routinely deploy SBE39s as back-up air temp
sensors on our buoys, which raises questions when we describe the instrument.
That's led me to think that including the medium in an instrument/platform
definition isn't necessarily a good idea.

Cheers - Nan

On 3/24/15 9:47 AM, Isenor, Anthony wrote:
I would consider that to be a "tethered" platform; where as a UAV in my mind is capable of more maneuverability.  Interesting though, because I am now wondering if your winged kite should be distinguished from an aerostat (a tethered balloon).

I also think it worthwhile to maintain UAV as a search target.

</Anthony>

From: John Graybeal [mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com]
Sent: March-24-15 10:07 AM
To: Roy Lowry
Cc: seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Seavox] L06 extension

Yes, my 'unmanned aircraft' name could just as well be 'unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)'.

So is one of those flying kites that Google et al put up for energy generation or network coverage a UAV too, do you figure?

http://www.google.com/makani/

John

On Mar 24, 2015, at 03:44, Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear All,

I'm happy with this suggestion, except I'd like to keep the reference to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) as a search target. As Nan says we can add finer grained codes should the need arise.

Unless there are any objections make the changes on Thursday (26).

Cheers, Roy.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Graybeal [mailto:jbgraybeal at mindspring.com]
Sent: 17 March 2015 04:01
To: Lowry, Roy K.
Cc: Nan Galbraith; seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Seavox] L06 extension

Thoughts without conclusions....

I think an autonomous aircraft is one that doesn't require remote piloting of any sort -- it's not just human-independent, it's self-contained.

Whereas a remotely piloted aircraft is one that can be remotely piloted at all, even if there may be a human pilot aboard?

At first I didn't realize the last sentence in each definition was meant to bridge both definitions. It's useful but maybe there's another path that is clearer: actually define the term 'unmanned aircraft' as "Any heavier-than-air aircraft that is not occupied by people; may be a remotely piloted aircraft or an autonomous aircraft. Also referred to as a drone."

I also like to stay ahead of usage (i.e., setting up additional codes up front), but common usage doesn't always follow the path of greatest terminological distinction. So sometimes there's an advantage to seeing where the paths go before you pour the sidewalks, I guess.

Hopefully helping,

John

P.S. By the way, I'm sure unmanned autonomous aircraft exist today -- I saw some science done with one off the California coast, in fact. In the US, if it isn't in flight lanes (under 100 feet I think) and isn't commercial, it's arguably legal, if I recall correctly. They did some cool observing patterns with it to measure the CODAR/HF RADAR signal coverage.  (And I bet the military have a few, too!)

On Mar 10, 2015, at 06:58, Lowry, Roy K. <rkl at bodc.ac.uk<mailto:rkl at bodc.ac.uk>> wrote:

Thanks Nan,

I was trying to follow the International Civil Aviation Authority classification, which has two types: remotely piloted and autonomous. As you say, if this granularity proves too coarse we can add child concepts in the future.

In my initial e-mail I was aiming to just cover remotely-piloted with the new code. Or do you think I should set up the additional code for fully-autonomous now as well? This would give us:

remotely piloted aircraft
RPA
A heavier-than-air aircraft without a human pilot aboard that is controlled remotely by a human pilot. Also referred to, together with computer-controlled aircraft, as a drone or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

autonomous aircraft
A heavier-than-air aircraft without a human pilot aboard that is controlled by on-board or remote computers. Also referred to, together with aircraft piloted remotely by a human, as a drone or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).

My reasons for including UAV (so hard not to type AUV!!!!!) and drone for that matter was to provide a target for free text searches - many of these have been implemented to include the alternative label and definition as well as the preferred label.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nan Galbraith [mailto:ngalbraith at whoi.edu]
Sent: 10 March 2015 13:30
To: seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [Seavox] L06 extension

Hi Roy -

Yes, I agree, this seems like it will be needed soon, if it isn't already.

My only concern is whether you'll need to differentiate between the many types of unmanned aerial vehicles that may be in use, or can these be added later as subclasses?

Last point - is there such a thing as a non-human pilot? Can an RPA be piloted by a computer, and does that make a difference to its function as a platform?

Like Bob, I thought UAV was probably the acronym you'd want in the definition (or, do you need to supply an acronym there at all?).

Cheers -

Nan

On 3/10/15 8:48 AM, Robert C. Groman wrote:

Roy,

I think you meant to write UAV for "unmanned aerial vehicle", since
AUV is an abbreviation for "autonomous underwater vehicle".

Cheers, Bob

On 3/10/2015 7:29 AM, Lowry, Roy K. wrote:

Dear All,
I've had a request to extend the platform type (L06) to include an
additional child entry under 'non-buoyant aircraft' for unmanned
aerial vehicles, sometimes referred to as drones. These are a
platform type that has entered scientific (as opposed to military)
use since the vocabulary was last revised and so an extension seems
reasonable.  The simplest approach to take would be to add:
remotely piloted aircraft
RPA
A heavier-than-air aircraft without a human pilot aboard that is
controlled remotely by a human pilot. Also referred to as a drone or
unmanned aerial vehicle (AUV).
This leaves the way open for autonomous aircraft as a future L06
addition should the associated legal and liability issues be resolved.
Comments or alternative suggestions?
Cheers, Roy.

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

_______________________________________________
Seavox mailing list
Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>
http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox

This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.

_______________________________________________
Seavox mailing list
Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>
http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox

This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.

_______________________________________________
Seavox mailing list
Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>
http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox

_______________________________________________

Seavox mailing list

Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk<mailto:Seavox at mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk>

http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/seavox

--

*******************************************************

* Nan Galbraith        Information Systems Specialist *

* Upper Ocean Processes Group            Mail Stop 29 *

* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution                *

* Woods Hole, MA 02543                 (508) 289-2444 *

*******************************************************

________________________________
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic records management system.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.nerc-liv.ac.uk/pipermail/seavox/attachments/20150324/57f8ee18/attachment-0001.html 