> [DMP] Where does the Units of Measurement Ontology stand ...
> ... There is NO reason to reinvent the wheel as you say. (01)
[ppy] Indeed! This is an active and fundamentally important area to
pursue. Many parties and SDO's are doing interesting work. Ref.
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM &
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard ...
PatHayes and I, in collaboration with a bunch of others (OMG among
them) are planning to resume the OASIS QUOMOS TC work (ref.
https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=quomos )
after this current OntologySummit is over. (02)
As some of you might still remember, the abovementioned
UoM_Ontology_Standard effort that grew out of OntologySummit2009,
which then spun off to become the QUOMOS Technical Committee at OASIS
and is chartered to develop the CommonLogic-based ontology standard
for Quantities and Units of Measure at OASIS. (03)
Regards. =ppy
-- (04)
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, MacPherson, Deborah
<dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks also, not familiar with QUDT @ NASA will check out
>
>
>
> DEBORAH MACPHERSON
>
> Specifications and Research
>
> Cannon Design
> 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> Suite 500
> Arlington, VA 22201
>
> Phone: 703.907.2353
> Direct Dial: 2353
>
> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cannondesign.com
> Skype debmacp (05)
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Price
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:58 AM
>
>
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
>
> The QUDT effort at NASA is being updated to version 1.2 - I've seen a draft
> NASA QUDT Handbook so know it's nearing completion.
>
>
> Version 1.1 is available at : http://www.qudt.org/
>
>
> ISO 15926 Edition 1 does not use QUDT. However, there is an effort to
> produce an OWL-based 15926 standard that is just getting underway where the
> intent is to reuse W3C (Prov) and industry standards like QUDT where
> possible.
>
>
> Cheers
> David
>
> UK +44 7788 561308
> US +1 336 283 0606 (06)
> On 12 Mar 2013, at 12:32, MacPherson, Deborah wrote:
>
>
>
> Where does the Units of Measurement Ontology stand currently and has it been
> used with ISO 15926? There is NO reason to reinvent the wheel as you say.
>
>
>
> DEBORAH MACPHERSON
>
> Specifications and Research
>
> Cannon Design
> 3030 Clarendon Blvd.
> Suite 500
> Arlington, VA 22201
>
> Phone: 703.907.2353
> Direct Dial: 2353
>
> dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cannondesign.com
> Skype debmacp (07)
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew West
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 7:11 AM
> To: 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
>
>
> Dear Deborah,
>
> Well if you are trying to exchange measurement data, that is relatively
> easy, and pointing to parametric design examples as having problems for
> standards based exchange, therefore meaning that standards based exchange of
> measurement data is difficult is just plain misleading. You can easily
> exchange measurement data using ISO 15926 for example, or a number of other
> standards, usually labelled SCADA (supervisory control and data
> acquisition). What is not needed is another standard for doing this, there
> are already too many.
>
> By the way, measurements look easy from the outside, but once you lift the
> lid, you find all kinds of interesting things there you can easily get
> tripped up by – another reason for not reinventing.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew West
>
> Information Junction
>
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
>
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. (08)
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Deborah
> MacPherson
> Sent: 12 March 2013 10:11
> To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Cc: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
> Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response Matthew. You are probably right on target. The thing
> is some problems and opportunities should not wait. Creating modular
> solutions to keep some information in sets as its transferred would help.
>
>
>
> Toby and I have been talking about "lighter" versions of our standards that
> are made for heavy monolithic models. What I like about BACnet as an angle
> on this is the transactional nature of collecting and reporting
> temperatures, tasking sensors and so forth that are only one small set of
> information at a time.
>
>
>
> Deborah
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:46 AM, "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Deborah,
>
> I think the problem, in this case at least, is not quite as you describe.
>
> My understanding is that the issue here was around parametrically defined
> objects, where different CAD systems use different parametric functions to
> generate objects from their parametric definition. Because of the different
> functions, to round trip you would have to wrap the parametric description
> so it can be sent to the receiving system, and sent back later. Actually, I
> think it would be smarter just to send an identifier that told you the
> original object when it came back, but even that does not help you with
> changes that have been made to the object in the receiving system with an
> incompatible parametric system. The problems are just harder than you would
> think at a surface level.
>
> Now this is just an inevitable stage of development. In the early stages, a
> thousand flowers bloom, but the vast majority fade. Eventually a few remain,
> and it becomes more important (now these are the survivors) that they can
> interoperate, than that they retain competitive advantage, so interoperation
> is achieved, or a standard developed that customers require them to conform
> to.
>
> You can see that the state you are pointing to is in the middle of this
> process. Eventual completion of the process is pretty much inevitable. The
> bad news is that from what I have seen and experienced there is relatively
> little you can do to speed the process up (or slow it down) significantly
> and the time-scale for the process is decades (or more in some cases), not
> months or years.
>
> So the smart thing to do is to recognise where you are, try to encourage
> progress through the process, and adopt strategies that recognise the
> reality of where you are in the process.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matthew West
>
> Information Junction
>
> Tel: +44 1489 880185
>
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>
> Skype: dr.matthew.west
>
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
>
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
>
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
> and Wales No. 6632177.
>
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf OfMacPherson,
> Deborah
> Sent: 11 March 2013 21:56
> 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 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
>
> Cannondesign.com
>
> Skype debmacp
>
>
>
> From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf OfSimon 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>
> 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/
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
> (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (010)
|