Toby Considine wrote:
>
> Unitsml also at oasis is reaching for a comprehensive solution to all
> physical measurements.
> (01)
Being careful, UnitsML (which NIST leads) is primarily about
standardizing _representation_ of measurements in HTML and XML
resources, and tracing unit identifiers to a standard. It is not an
ontology for measurement concepts, although it is supportive. (02)
Adam Pease wrote: (03)
> SUMO has a comprehensive ontology of weights and measures.
>
>
>http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&flang=SUO-KIF&term=UnitOfMeasure
>
>
><http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=EnglishLanguage&flang=SUO-KIF&term=UnitOfMeasure> (04)
In a similar way, the DOLCE ontology has a very good model of measurements:
http://www.loa-cnr.it/DOLCE.html
although Niccola Guarino will probably insist (modestly) that it is not
an expert work. (05)
These models are different, because they take different viewpoints on
measurement. (06)
The UCUM standard from Healthcare Level 7 (HL7)
http://unitsofmeasure.org/
is not an ontology, but it could easily be rendered as one. It takes a
third view -- the idea of 'units calculus', which is pragmatically
useful, but doesn't capture the theory of measurement. (07)
I would say that the choice of ontology for units of measure may depend
very much on the intended use and the kind of inferences you want to
make. In particular, there is a big difference between the
'specification and tolerance' usages and the 'measurement and
uncertainty' usages. A medical prescrption is a specification, with
some standard pharmaceutical tolerance for variation in the actual
medication units. A toxic agents screen is a set of measurements made
from a tissue sample, with some limitations on accuracy (uncertainty)
introduced by the measurement mechanism. When you compare a measurement
to a specification, you may be talking about comparing intervals or
threshold values. (08)
But if all you want to compare is mileage driven against specified
intervals for preventive maintenance, these careful distinctions are
irrelevant, and the UCUM approach is as good as any. It supports
conversion of kilometres to miles, and it really doesn't matter if the
conversion factor used is 1.6km/mi, even though that is only within 1%. (09)
You may also want to look at MORFEO, which discusses some of these issues (010)
http://forge.morfeo-project.org/wiki_en/index.php/Units_of_measurement_ontology (011)
In short, there is no shortage of work in this area, because every
serious ontology encounters the need for describing measurements at some
point. (012)
(The QUOMOS standards activity is designed to get the recognized experts
in specification and measurement standards to produce a well-founded
base ontology with which both of the specialized approaches are upward
compatible. The object is primarily to preempt standardization and
misuse of less expert ontologies for units and measures, and to prevent
erroneous inferences from ontologies that couple different views of
units and measures. But it is a standards process, and it won't finish
quickly.) (013)
-Ed (014)
--
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 (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
|