Tara, (01)
Some of the links below are probably pertinent, and may have already
shown up on your search: (02)
[1] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM (03)
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/quomos/charter.php (04)
[3] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=quomos (05)
[4] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (06)
[5] http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009_Communique (07)
A while back, Pat Hayes, Steve Ray, Jerry Smith and I put together a
FAQ about the QUOMOS Project, which you can find useful too.
It's at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/Reference/QUOMOS_FAQ_20100105.pdf (08)
Regards. =ppy
-- (09)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Tara Athan <taraathan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|