Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Guidance on resultQuality usage #221

Open
oldskeptic opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Guidance on resultQuality usage #221

oldskeptic opened this issue Mar 27, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@oldskeptic
Copy link
Contributor

(Related ticket #138 ; filling this out from email exchanges with @sgrellet @rob-metalinkage )

How resultQuality documents the quality of a result is not documented in Sosa. The examples that we have so far focus on nominal or static measurement errors. Example B.9 DHT22 Description makes use of examples classes to record the FairQuality of results which is underspecified.

Some use cases:

  • GPS units and other "smart" sensor will report confidence intervals, HVOP, Circular Error Probable or rms95 along with a position.
  • WaterQuality data where, in order to assess the resultQuality (ex : turbidity, suspended materials, …), extra observations are taken at the same time (ex : weather).

Conclusions:

  • Documenting these patterns is a must have but sure we’ll land in a ‘that depends on your UseCase situation’.
  • it will be chaos if we don't provide canonical patterns - any number of complex result formats and no interoperability
  • In some cases we’ll advise Observation via hasResultQuality to provide some Quality tags (‘raw data’, ‘expert validated’, …)
  • It may be possible to reuse some of our previous structures to do this.
  • In reference to Definitions of sensor characteristics - e.g. "Sensitivity" #220, some of the existing useful classes might be over specified for reuse.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants