[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Practical onomastics...

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:37:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <1384.>
Naming considerations should depend on the practicality and utility of
unique identification.  The batch of received test tubes should have a
unique identifier so that the provinence of each tube can be determined,
for example if there were a fault in a production batch.  Having an
identifier for the batch allows statements to be made as to the properties
of the individual tubes within the batch (dimensions, material, rating,
manufacturer, ...).    (01)

Given that the individual tubes are identical (for all practical purposes)
without identifying labels, the assignment of different names to the
unidentifyable tubes upon receipt would be counterproductive.    (02)

The utility of assigning identifiers to the lots being sent to each robot
depends on context.  If useful, the identifiers could be defined when the
decision is made to create the lots (either before or after receipt of the
shipment), but the identifiers could not be assigned to a physical lot
until that lot is (at least logically) separated from the other test tubes
in the shipment.    (03)

Until a test tube is removed from the lot received by a robot, there seems
to be no utility in assigning it an identifier.  However, once a test tube
is selected for use, the assignment of an identifier could be useful.  But
depending upon the situation, it might be more reasonable to identify the
"package" (test tube plus contents) or merely the contents instead of the
specific test tube.  An identifier for each individual test tube could be
created, but not assigned when the lot is transfered to the receiving
robot, or at any time thereafter.    (04)

As far as the knowledge base is concerned, the only naming concern for the
individual test tubes is that they be unique.  Statements in the knowledge
base would relate the individual tube to the batch it came from, its
physical properties, and any label attached to it.  Considerations for
the text on a physical label might suggest that features of a written
identifier may allow a viewer to infer some of these features.  Viewers of
the knowledge base should be able to see and access information about an
individual test tube using the text on the label.    (05)

As Matthew suggests, if an unused test tube breaks, there is no need to
identify it; all that is needed (other than picking up the shards) is that
the number of available tubes be decremented.    (06)

If a test tube in use breaks or spills, it often would be more useful to
identify the specific contents which spilled rather than the container.    (07)

If a used test tube is to be reused, it may be useful to identify it
before cleaning, so that the type of contents might be identified.
Similarly, if issues on disposal of used test tubes depend on the type
of former contents.  If all the test tubes in the facility use the same
type of contents, this may not be an issue.    (08)

If there might be an issue related to incomplete cleaning, there might be
a reason to maintain the identity of a test tube post-cleaning.  This
would bring up issues of maintaining information about each usage of
a test tube.  One way to do this would be to link the identifier to
the test tube as involved in a particular use.  A subsequent use of a
test tube would have a new identifier, but be related via a property to
its previous use.    (09)

If the identity of a test tube is not maintained after cleaning, the test
tube could re-join the lot of unidentified test tubes and a new identifier
could be assigned to it the next time it is selected for use.    (010)

-- doug foxvog    (011)

On Wed, May 19, 2010 12:25, Matthew West said:
> Dear John,
>> For your considerations:
>> A shipment of test tubes has arrived at the lab and the head
>> robot has taken possession of the box. There are a gross in the
>> cardboard box which has an assigned UI to facilitate shipping.
>> Each (other) robot will receive a dozen test tubes for their work
>> tomorrow.
>> What are the practical naming and entailed support considerations
>> for each test tube?
> MW: I suggest not naming the test tubes individually at all. The different
> test tubes are presumably indistinguishable from each other, and so it is
> unlikely that you would care which particular one was used for some
> purpose,
> or which one precisely it was that was dropped and broken, you just have
> one
> less.
> Regards
> Matthew West
> Information  Junction
> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>> -John Bottoms
>>   FirstStar Systems
>>   Concord, MA
>>   T: 978-505-9878    (012)

doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (013)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (014)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (015)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>