Pitfalls in alignment of observation models resolved using PROV as an upper o...Simon Cox
AGU Fall Meeting, 2015-12-16
A number of models for observation metadata have been developed in the earth and environmental science communities, including OGC’s Observations and Measurements (O&M), the ecosystems community’s Extensible Observation Ontology (OBOE), the W3C’s Semantic Sensor Network Ontology (SSNO), and the CUAHSI/NSF Observations Data Model v2 (ODM2). In order to combine data formalized in the various models, mappings between these must be developed. In some cases this is straightforward: since ODM2 took O&M as its starting point, their terminology is almost completely aligned. In the eco-informatics world observations are almost never made in isolation of other observations, so OBOE pays particular attention to groupings, with multiple atomic ‘Measurements’ in each oboe:Observation which does not have a result of its own and thus plays a different role to an om:Observation. And while SSN also adopted terminology from O&M, mapping is confounded by the fact that SSNO uses DOLCE as its foundation and places ssn:Observations as ‘Social Objects’ which are explicitly disjoint from ‘Events’, while O&M is formalized as part of the ISO/TC 211 harmonised (UML) model and sees om:Observations as value assignment activities.
Foundational ontologies (such as BFO, GFO, UFO or DOLCE) can provide a framework for alignment, but different upper ontologies can be based in profoundly different world-views and use of incommensurate frameworks can confound rather than help. A potential resolution is provided by comparing recent studies that align SSNO and O&M, respectively, with the PROV ontology. PROV provides just three base classes:
Entity, Activity and Agent. om:Observation is sub-classed
from prov:Activity, while ssn:Observation is sub-classed from prov:Entity. This confirms that, despite the same name, om:Observation and ssn:Observation denote different aspects of the observation process: the observation event, and the record of the observation event, respectively.
Alignment with the simple PROV classes has clarified this issue in a way that had previously proved difficult to resolve. The simple 3-class base model from PROV appears to provide just enough logic to serve as a lightweight upper ontology, particularly for workflow or process-based information.
Pitfalls in alignment of observation models resolved using PROV as an upper o...Simon Cox
AGU Fall Meeting, 2015-12-16
A number of models for observation metadata have been developed in the earth and environmental science communities, including OGC’s Observations and Measurements (O&M), the ecosystems community’s Extensible Observation Ontology (OBOE), the W3C’s Semantic Sensor Network Ontology (SSNO), and the CUAHSI/NSF Observations Data Model v2 (ODM2). In order to combine data formalized in the various models, mappings between these must be developed. In some cases this is straightforward: since ODM2 took O&M as its starting point, their terminology is almost completely aligned. In the eco-informatics world observations are almost never made in isolation of other observations, so OBOE pays particular attention to groupings, with multiple atomic ‘Measurements’ in each oboe:Observation which does not have a result of its own and thus plays a different role to an om:Observation. And while SSN also adopted terminology from O&M, mapping is confounded by the fact that SSNO uses DOLCE as its foundation and places ssn:Observations as ‘Social Objects’ which are explicitly disjoint from ‘Events’, while O&M is formalized as part of the ISO/TC 211 harmonised (UML) model and sees om:Observations as value assignment activities.
Foundational ontologies (such as BFO, GFO, UFO or DOLCE) can provide a framework for alignment, but different upper ontologies can be based in profoundly different world-views and use of incommensurate frameworks can confound rather than help. A potential resolution is provided by comparing recent studies that align SSNO and O&M, respectively, with the PROV ontology. PROV provides just three base classes:
Entity, Activity and Agent. om:Observation is sub-classed
from prov:Activity, while ssn:Observation is sub-classed from prov:Entity. This confirms that, despite the same name, om:Observation and ssn:Observation denote different aspects of the observation process: the observation event, and the record of the observation event, respectively.
Alignment with the simple PROV classes has clarified this issue in a way that had previously proved difficult to resolve. The simple 3-class base model from PROV appears to provide just enough logic to serve as a lightweight upper ontology, particularly for workflow or process-based information.
Na dnešním pracovním trhu panuje převaha nabídky velmi dobrých lidí oproti poptávce po pracovní síle. Důvodů je mnoho, ale ty zde nejsou předmětem rozboru. Stále se setkávám s tím, že mnozí talentovaní uchazeči neumí správně prodat své kompetence, znalosti, výjimečné vlastnosti a dovednosti. Po určité době hledání někteří začnou bloudit v začarovaném kruhu a tak jim ta pravá pozice, kde by se mohli realizovat, uniká. Je to velká škoda pro ně, ale i pro firmy, které by mohly využít jejich neuvěřitelného potenciálu. Proto je důležité si uvědomit několik zásad, které připraveným uchazečům umožní proniknout na správné místo.
UNIKATNI KOGNITIVNE BEHAVIORALNI MODEL KOUCINKU PRO VASOldřich NAVRÁTIL
Unikátní kognitivně behaviorání model koučinku
„Wellness – Mind – Control“ – „Zdravá kontrola mysli“
pod vedením certifikovaného kouče ing. Oldřicha Navrátila
V životě máme dvě jistoty. To, že jsme se narodili a pak, že zemřeme. Dva body ve vesmíru různě vzdálené od sebe. Mezi těmito body se odehrává náš příběh, který je neopakovatelný. Život, to jsou různé etapy, které po sobě zanecháváme na naší cestě mezi zrozením a smrtí. Nikdo z nás neví, jak dlouhá tato cesta bude, kdy a kde skončí.