This article is misleading
This page has been hijacked.
Kevin Delin was NOT the first one to use, or the one that coined, the title "sensorweb". The concept was developed in the military, and the title had been in use inside NASA for years before it became "public" -- this is typical JPL self attribution.
To " Hey!" => It is impossible for the casual user to discern what is "commercial propaganda" from encyclopedic facts so it is important that contributors be ACCURATE about what they post. As written, this entry is virtually useless and Wikipedia suffers as a consequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
!!! I agree. I have tried to add more information about how the rest of the world outside of Kevin's world see "Sensor Webs" and when I come back I see that it has all been deleted or misconstrued again. I've given up on trying to contribute anything to this page. If you want to see a different view of what Sensor Webs is about, go to http://www.ogcnetwork.net/SWE. What is described in this article is more what the rest of the world calls "Sensor Nets".
This article is incomplete
It presents a pedestrian view of the sensorweb concept that is narrowly targeted at commercial applications that can be deployed today with existing technologies. NASA has identified technical features for future Earth-observing sensorweb scenarios that make the article's description pale by comparison. What the article does to the sensorweb concept is akin to describing the personal computer by saying that it can do elementary school arithmetic. This explains why certain statements made in the article (ability to "identify" things) appear to be out of context (i.e. see the comments below).
hey! that was just complaining... (it is up to us - ie those in the sensor web community) - to edit this entry to reflect the whole topic :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
noticed that this bit was thrown out:
Sensor Web identifies potential problems arising from ever cheaper supply of pods and pod miniturization in line with moores law - threat to local fauna that may try to ingest pods and choke. - littering the environment with large amounts microelectronic gear.
leaving it in would help neutrality of the article.
It's not neutrality but accuracy that is the issue
The issues listed above are out of context and therefore not helpful. (For starters, the Sensor Web doesn't "identify" anything.) The full discussion may be found in the 2nd reference. The issues brought up in that article is why making Sensor Web pods very, very small is not a particular useful engineering goal in many cases. If issues like this are to be brought up, it would be better to list them as they appear in the article, rather than the jumbled partial summary above. The lines were deleted not from neutrality reasons but from accuracy issues.
here is the quote:
From the experience of deploying the Sensor Web ... it is apparent that the ease with which the system is deployed is just as critical for acceptance by end-users as are its technological aspects. With the exception of applications in battlefield theaters, most outdoor Sensor Web applications require the system to be deployed in manner that does not harm the monitored environment. For example, end users have expressed concerns that if Sensor Web pods are too small, local fauna may try to ingest them and choke. Endusers also want to avoid littering their environment with hundreds of pieces of microelectronic gear.
with recognising is meant that Sensor Web is aware of end-user hesitations and deals with it.
wonderful quote but not expressed in what you originally wrote
You keep applying human characteristics to an inanimate technology. The Sensor Web doesn't decide how to proceed. The paragraph you quote has little to do with the specifics of the Sensor Web technology. In fact there is a much longer section in the paper that describes the issues raised by Moore's law and how it applies to the Sensor Web. (Remember, you brought up Moore's law in the original deleted portion and that isn't even present in the quote you took from the paper.)
The point remains: you didn't accurately summarize the article, hence the deletion. Finally, the points you raise (in terms of deployment) apply to any network of sensors and yet you make it sound like it only applies to the Sensor Web. The fact that the Sensor Web construction of the systems deployed so far does address these issues you quote from the article is a positive but that's hardly what you originally wrote.
Connection with SensorWare
It seems this page has much in common with the products offered by SensorWare Systems. So much in common that it even used language directly from their website("over twenty Sensor Web systems have been deployed, some spanning as many as 6 miles and running continuously for over 3 years."). I think pointing out the connection between this article and that company would help this be less of an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Things more neutral
In fact, the SensorWare page is similar to the original NASA/JPL page. And the NASA/JPL page provided much of the information to the article. However, it seems more neutral now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)