[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] QUOMOS status

To: "tara_athan@xxxxxxxxxx" <tara_athan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Edward Barkmeyer <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:52:26 -0500
Message-id: <4D237A7A.7060101@xxxxxxxx>
Tara,    (01)

you 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.
>       (02)

The principal contacts for the QUOMOS effort are:
  Dr. Steven Ray, Carnegie-Mellon, steve@xxxxxxxxxxx
  Dr. Frank Olken, NSF/Lawrence Berkeley, olken@xxxxxxx
  Jerry Smith, DISA, Jerry.Smith@xxxxxxxx
Steve and Frank are the OASIS Chairs, Jerry is the Secretariat.
Several other members of the Ontolog Forum, notably Peter Yim and Pat 
Hayes, have also been involved and may be of help.    (03)

I have to apologize for saying "we" in reference to the QUOMOS effort, 
since NIST is not actively involved.    (04)

-Ed    (05)

> 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.
>       (06)

Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                Cel: +1 240-672-5800    (07)

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, 
 and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."    (08)

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    (09)

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