Thanks Paul will check this out. On this thread I think BACnet has a higher
chance than many of succeeding just because it is common to see in systems
specifications now and the ROI has been demonstrated, if not proven. To crack
open and expand even further would be great. (01)
Deborah (02)
Sent from my iPhone (03)
On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:21 PM, "Pope, Paul Albert" <papope@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (04)
> Deborah, et al.,
>
> I offer the following (perhaps cursory) info, FYI/FWIW, concerning your
>statement "...a part name or number ... that could be mapped to a generic form
>for broader exchange purposes" and the general interest in the "facilities
>domain."
>
> North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
> http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
> "It was developed jointly by the U.S. Economic Classification Policy
>Committee (ECPC), Statistics Canada, and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de
>Estadistica y Geografia, to allow for a high level of comparability in
>business statistics among the North American countries."
> I wish this taxonomy was available in OWL or other format; alas, it is
>only(?) available as a spreadsheet:
>
>http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/reference_files_tools/2012/2012_NAICS_Structure.xls
>
> Concerning "Dining and Drinking Spaces", try entering the keyword "dining"
>into the search text box in the upper left for "2012 NAICS Search".
> The last code in the list retrieved is "722511 Full-Service Restaurants".
>Click on that link. Not responsible for hunger pangs that might result ;-)
>
> B/R,
> Paul Pope, Ph.D.
> Los Alamos National Laboratory
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of MacPherson, Deborah
>[dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:56 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
> Somewhere in this discussion is a problem that is the essence of what has
>been holding up progress in the facilities domain.
>
> There are ways to publish technical requirements or test for conformance
>online for free, and pay (even substantially) to participate in the working
>groups or have voting privileges. For example OGC, W3C.
>
> I can even see being able to own a part name or number within a larger
>communication machine that could be mapped to a generic form for broader
>exchange purposes. For example “13-57 13 15 Dining and Drinking Spaces”
>versus “The Sand Bar and Grille”
>
> Depending on the domain, or need for cross disciplinary discussion, many on
>the IP-protected side have no interest in supporting, or will even actively
>stops progress, on a common model. There is also the problem of failed common
>models that do not work, will not accommodate different object definitions -
>from software to software or industry model to industry model - without loss
>of data or functionality. Bentley systems has stepped forward in this white
>paper<http://ftp2.bentley.com/dist/collateral/docs/bentley_institute/White_paper_IFC.pdf>
> on the IFC model to say actually – the emperor has no clothes on. See pages
>6 and 7 “Round Tripping”
>
> For some reason I think ontologies might be a way these IP-With-Open problems
>might be fixed but maybe I am wrong or wishing for too much.
>
> DEBORAH MACPHERSON
> Specifications and Research
>
> Cannon Design
> 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> Suite 500
> Arlington, VA 22201
>
> Phone: 703.907.2353
> Direct Dial: 2353
>
> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cannondesign.com
> Skype debmacp
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 5:25 PM
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Peter R. Benson
><Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> Deborah, IP is a real issue. We designed the eOTD to try to resolve some of
> these issues. In a dictionary the IP resides in the representation but also
> in the identifiers or codes as these are always copyright.
>
> That is not entirely clear; see e.g. SOUTHCO, INC v. KANEBRIDGE CORPORATION
>(
> http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021243pe.pdf ), where part numbers were
>found to be not protected (but see also how Alito takes care to distinguish
>Delta Dental )
>
> Simon
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/OntologySummit2013/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (06)
|