RSVP me positive for this one please!~
On 5/14/09 7:44 AM, "Peter Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Great conversation thread, thank you all ... just interrupting (apologies) to remind everyone that we will be having a following-up planning conference call on this "ontology-based standards" topic inless than three hours.
If you feel that this is important enough, please come join us. Details are on the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_05_14
Hope to talk to you then! =ppy
--
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Deborah L. McGuinness <dlm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
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/
>
_________________________________________________________________
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/
--
Sr. Technical Evangelist – Adobe Systems
Chair – OASIS SOA RM Technical Committee
Manager – Adobe LiveCycle ES Developers List
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Twitter: duanechaos
TV Show: http://www.duanesworldtv.org
Band: http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|