Using an existing units of measurement ontology, let it grow and make that
on-line available as a Semantic Web endpoint would seem be the obvious
thing to do. For units of measurement support would seem to be trivial,
but I think we are not talking only about that. This is just the start and
the thing we are talking about is all kinds of reference data. (01)
This is not about technical possibilities but about organization. An
ontology should be supported and therefore making it on-line available may
best be the responsibility of the owner of the data or the content
supporter. (02)
So I want to suggest that all of us having units of measurements content in
support, to make that available in Semantic Web technology, and to let
other systems use all those endpoints together as a source of reference
data. Then to let it grow from there. (03)
Onno Paap (04)
"Deborah L. McGuinness" (05)
<dlm@xxxxxxxxxx> (06)
Sent by:
To
ontology-summit-bounces@onto Ontology Summit
2009 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
log.cim3.net
cc
05/14/2009 04:35 PM (07)
Please respond to Ontology
Subject
Summit 2009 Re:
[ontology-summit] Progressing a Units Ontology - Now (08)
I agree that the area is important and would not likely be quick to
generate but is not technically problematic.
If such an ontology was done well and documented well, it could be quite
valuable for reuse.
There are many ontologies that cover pieces of this including for
example the units and measures ontology originally done at my old lab at
Stanford, the work at NIST, parts of the sweet ontology, etc. i am not
aware of any that cover as much as you mention below though. (09)
Deborah
David Leal wrote:
> Dear Pat,
>
>
>> Hmm. Maybe Im being naive here, but I don't see why area 0 should be
>> all that difficult to ontologize. In fact, it seems pretty
>> straightforward. Getting wide agreement on a single such ontology
>> might be hard going on impossible, but actually creating a reasonably
>> complete ontology seems manageable.
>>
>
> May be it is not that difficult - it is just that it is important. (A
> nuclear reactor pressure vessel may be simpler than a conventional steam
> drum, but you spend much more time worrying about it.)
>
> Wide agreement is not needed - we just need agreement with the ISO TC12
> people who write the standards on which the ontology will be based. My
> feeling is that the amount of ontological committment within the basic
> metrology standards is small, so that the part of the ontology they will
> want to comment on is small. The rest of the ontology will be our use of
> their standard, and they won't care so much.
>
> We do not know is exactly where the dividing line is, and due dilligence
> requires that we find out.
>
> Best regards,
> David
>
> At 08:54 14/05/2009 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> On May 14, 2009, at 4:31 AM, David Leal wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> There are several different areas related to units, which include:
>>>
>>> 0) A framework ontology covering:
>>> - generic concepts such as: quantity, "quantities of the same kind",
>>> unit,
>>> scale;
>>> - basic scientific quantities, such as mass, length, time-duration,
>>> energy;
>>> - SI units for the basic scientific quantities.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) The many thousands of different units for basic scientific
>>> quantities
>>> which are used in different parts of engineering and business, such as
>>> furlong, hectare, BTU, US survey foot. There are also measures for
>>> "amount
>>> of stuff", such as bolt of cloth, which are specific to particular
>>> industries.
>>>
>>> 2) "Difficult quantities/properties" such as those in materials
>>> science -
>>> tensile strengths, hardnesses, etc. The result of a high precision
>>> temperature measurement is also a "difficult quantity/property",
>>> because it
>>> is measured according to ITS90.
>>>
>>> 3) Properties at a particular state, such as "dynamic viscosity at 20
>>> degrees C". Here the quantity is simple, but the value is for a
>>> state which
>>> the fluid is not necessarily in.
>>>
>>> There is a pressing need to solve business requirements in area (1)
>>> now!
>>> Fortunately this area is straightforward, and does not rely
>>> crucially on
>>> area (0) which is difficult.
>>>
>> Hmm. Maybe Im being naive here, but I don't see why area 0 should be
>> all that difficult to ontologize. In fact, it seems pretty
>> straightforward. Getting wide agreement on a single such ontology
>> might be hard going on impossible, but actually creating a reasonably
>> complete ontology seems manageable.
>>
>> Pat Hayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ============================================================
> David Leal
> CAESAR Systems Limited
> registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
> registered in England no. 2422371
> tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
> mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
> e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
> ============================================================
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/
> Community Wiki:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/
> (010)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/ (011)
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (012)
------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material.
If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are
hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination,
distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon
this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. (013)
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company.
------------------------------------------------------------ (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (015)
|