In a different thread, you mention the QUOMOS effort. I am putting
together a literature review on measurement ontologies (which as you
note are numerous and leave much to be desired) and would very much like
an update on the QUOMOS effort. Perhaps a link will be sufficient, as I
have not been able to find much beyond the original call. (01)
thanks, Tara
>
> In the QUOMOS effort, we used a different pitch for the BIPM
> (International Bureau of Weights and Measures) folk. We told them there
> should be a standard measurements ontology that they controlled, so that
> two dozen uneducated software engineering standards teams would have no
> excuse for building their own conflicting models and thus making a mess
> of 21st century international trade. But in a certain sense, we were
> just pitching the ontology to a different set of academics. Their
> primary concern is about what is to be measured, what the quality of the
> measurement is, and how the measurement and its quality are expressed.
> Those specifications are used in government specifications and contract
> rules. Industry folk rely on the references to the common standards, and
> their specialists use the details of the standards in designing their
> quality controls. The idea of the standard ontology is just to ensure
> that the BIPM knowledge is what is engineered into the standard form for
> the reasoning technologies that will supposedly be used in industry. It
> doesn't convey advantage in its own right.
>
>
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|