ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] 回复: Progressing a Units Ontology - virtual sessio

To: "edbark@xxxxxxxx" <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ontology Summit 2009 <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gunther Schadow <gschadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Carlisle <carlisle@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Forest Lin <linforests@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:02:12 -0700
Message-id: <C6456324.6669%dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
I would concur – I have not reviewed this work but it is on my list and sound like a good candidate to read on the airplane this weekend.  There is so much work in this area that is overwhelms me.

Can you suggest a few links to get me started?

Duane


On 5/29/09 9:58 AM, "Ed Barkmeyer" <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Duane Nickull wrote:

> This all lead me back to the initial perceived problem – a lack of alignment at a higher level for all taxonomies or weights and measures including notes where existing dimensions to the semantics of units were not considering the full spectrum of the laws of physics (ignoring quantum mechanics for now).

I respectfully suggest that Duane's problem is lack of examination of
the literature.  The issue of "alignment of taxonomies for weights and
measures" has been thoroughly researched and carefully addressed in ISO
1000 and in ISO Guide 99 (the VIM) and other BIPM publications.  The
scientific basis for the SI system of units was established in 1875 and
has been continuously improved as measurement science has advanced. And,
over time, the relationships of other 'customary' systems of measurement
to the SI system have become well-defined.  Historically the problem has
been in getting careful definitions of "customary" measurement units,
and in understanding the legal and commercial requirements with respect
to accuracy/uncertainty in measures.  Not all of those problems have
been solved formally, and commercial practice is careful only to the
extent required for the purpose at hand (which gives rise to a lot of
ill-informed practitioners).  But for the ontology, we have well
documented scientific and trade sources, and we need to select from them
the knowledge we intend to engineer (and stop there).

[What else would you expect from a NIST person? ;-)]

-Ed

--
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                FAX: +1 301-975-4694

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


--
Sr. Technical Evangelist – Adobe Systems
Chair – OASIS SOA RM Technical Committee
Manager – Adobe LiveCycle ES Developers List

Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com
Twitter: duanechaos
Duane’s World TV: http://www.duanesworldtv.org
Band: http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
Author – <a href="" href="http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html">http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2009/05/web-20-architecture-book-is-here.html “>Web 2.0 Architecture</a>

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