Hacktoberfest 2026 : les issues que les mainteneurs ont marquées pour octobre, ouvertes et accessibles aux débutants. Parcourir les issues Hacktoberfest

TSML - covJSON alignment and covJSON - ISO19123-1 alignment (email thread)

Ouverte
  • Quelque chose ne va pas ?
#189 7 commentaires 0 réactions 0 personnes assignées Voir sur GitHub

Personne n'a encore pris cette issue.

Évaluation

Difficulté
5/5
Temps estimé
Plus d'une semaine
Accessibilité débutants
25/100
Type d'issue
Fonctionnalité
Clarté
À clarifier
Activité
À l'abandon
Domaine
data

Piste de recherche

Commencez par covJSON Overview et Specification, en particulier la section 9.7 sur les extensions, puis comparez le mapping covJSON avec le dernier modèle conceptuel ISO 19123-1 et le modèle TSML 2.0 lié dans l’issue. Le travail sera considéré comme terminé lorsque les problèmes de mapping convenus seront documentés et qu’il aura été déterminé si une extension facultative pour une sémantique d’observation TSML plus approfondie est appropriée.

Rédigé par le modèle d'indexation à partir du texte de l'issue.

Description

comparison work Cross-SWG Priority 3

From: Paul Hershberg - NOAA Federal
Hi Jon,

As I mentioned last year in the below email exchange, the TimeseriesML conceptual model was

slated to undergo a revision to Version 2.0 following the recent updates to both the Observation & Measurements (ISO 19156, now OMS) update and also the Coverages (ISO 19123-1) update. Updates to the TSML conceptual model are nearing completion.

I've read thru the covJSON docs (covJSON Overview and covJSON Spec) and would like to ask a few questions concerning harmonization between covJSON and the new TSML conceptual model. The new model is here: New TSML 2.0 Conceptual Model in WebEA

We're looking at covJSON to use as the encoding for TSML to fit the less voluminous, and less detailed use cases of transport for encoding TSML over the web (a tsmljson encoding if you will).

We have two methods of TSML encodings in the standard, Domain-Range, and Time-Value Pair. We would like to map TSML's Domain-Range to covJSON (and eventually could serve up this data via the API-EDR spec).

  1. In the covJSON domainType of PointSeries (below in bold text), I wanted to ask where we may begin to think about adding new TSML 2.0 conceptual model classes (the new classes derived specifically from the new OMS standard) such as observedProperty, observer, procedure, host, etc, into covJSON. This will of course affect our tsmljson encoding, etc.
  • I'm looking at the parameters section in covJSON. Ideally we'd like to extend via the OMS ObservationCharacteristics there. We're wondering if there's interest in providing deeper semantics, i.e., creating an optional CovJSON extension with the aforementioned ObservationCharacteristics class. To comply with the intended simplicity of covJSON for web users, we'd make this optional in the cardinalities.

(Note, section 9.7 in covJSON doc deals with extensions, but looks to be about just adding custom members and types)
(Note, observedProperty is already in covJSON and is pretty straightforward.)

  1. I also wanted to note that work has been done to align covJSON with the new Coverage update ISO 19123-1
    to begin to bring this into the OGC building blocks methodology which could aid in the solution to provide standardized and testable interfaces. As we know, each OGC API standard is made of a set of requirements/building blocks, which can be reused beyond their original context.

We want to provide a covJSON encoding but are formalizing the TSML conceptual model as UML. Thus, we need a UML representation of covJSON aligned with ISO 19123-1 so we can derive an implementation model from the TSML conceptual model. Kathi Schleidt has put in this work, below.

Could you possibly take a look and check the covJSON mapping to 19123-1 and let us know of any issues?:
covJSON mapped to latest ISO 19123-1 conceptual model

Note, and was started with the covJSON UML diagram found at
covJSON simple UML without Collections

Thanks for any assistance,
Paul Hershberg
chair TSML SWG
NOAA/NWS

{
"type" : "Coverage",
"domain" : {
"type" : "Domain",
"domainType" : "PointSeries",
"axes": {
"x" : { "values": [-10.1] },
"y" : { "values": [ -40.2] },
"t" : { "values": ["2013-01-01","2013-01-02","2013-01-03",
"2013-01-04","2013-01-05","2013-01-06"] }
},
"referencing": [{
"coordinates": ["x","y"],
"system": {
"type": "GeographicCRS",
"id": "http://www.opengis.net/def/crs/OGC/1.3/CRS84"
}
}, {
"coordinates": ["t"],
"system": {
"type": "TemporalRS",
"calendar": "Gregorian"
}
}]
},
"parameters" : {
"PSAL": {
"type" : "Parameter",
"description" : {
"en": "The measured salinity, in practical salinity units (psu) of the sea water "
},
"unit" : {
"symbol" : "psu"
},
"observedProperty" : {
"id" : "http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/standard_name/sea_water_salinity/",
"label" : {
"en": "Sea Water Salinity"
}
}
},
"POTM": {
"type" : "Parameter",
"description" : {
"en": "The potential temperature, in degrees celcius, of the sea water"
},
"unit" : {
"label": {
"en": "Degree Celsius"
},
"symbol": {
"value": "Cel",
"type": "http://www.opengis.net/def/uom/UCUM/"
}
},
"observedProperty" : {
"id" : "http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/standard_name/sea_water_potential_temperature/",
"label" : {
"en": "Sea Water Potential Temperature"
}
}
}
},
"ranges" : {
"PSAL" : {
"type" : "NdArray",
"dataType": "float",
"axisNames": ["t"],
"shape": [6],
"values" : [ 43.9599, 43.9599, 43.9640, 43.9640, 43.9679, 43.9879 ]
},
"POTM" : {
"type" : "NdArray",
"dataType": "float",
"axisNames": ["t"],
"shape": [6],
"values" : [ 23.8, 23.7, 23.9, 23.4, 23.2, 22.4 ]
}
}
}

On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 4:28 AM Jon Blower wrote:
Hi Paul,

It would be great to harmonise CovJSON and TSML, so thanks very much for getting in touch. If you wouldn’t mind, could you please transfer your questions to the GitHub (https://github.com/opengeospatial/CoverageJSON/issues)?

Sadly I don’t have a lot of time to devote to CovJSON but there are others who can comment (e.g. Chris Little at the Met Office. I’m also trying to see if I can get some dedicated resource here at NOC to help move things forward, and I think we would have a strong interest in timeseries data.

I think having optional “extras” to introduce the deeper semantics of TimeseriesML sounds good, so very happy to explore this.

Many thanks to Kathi for the mapping work! My head is not sufficiently “into” the ISO19123 stuff anymore so I’m going to find it hard to comment on this, but others (e.g. Chris) might be better placed.

Best wishes,

Jon

Langage dominant
HTML
Étoiles
15
Forks
9
Merge moyen
6 h 1 min
PR mergées (30 j)
3

Préparer son environnement

Ce projet ne fournit ni conteneur de développement, ni Dockerfile, ni guide de contribution : l'installation est à votre charge. Commencez par son README, et consultez notre guide de la première contribution pour les étapes générales.

Par où commencer

  1. Lisez l'issue en entier, puis le guide de contribution du projet.
  2. Signalez en commentaire que vous la prenez — cela évite que deux personnes fassent le même travail.
  3. Forkez le dépôt et travaillez sur une branche.
  4. Ouvrez une pull request qui référence le numéro de l'issue.

Autres issues de opengeospatial/CoverageJSON

Toutes les issues de opengeospatial/CoverageJSON

Issues similaires

Plus d'issues Data Engineering

Recevez les nouvelles issues par e-mail

Un résumé court des issues GitHub adaptées aux débutants.