Deb, The Units of Measure Ontology project – QUOMOS – seems to be dying from lack of expert support, but in any case it has not produced a candidate specification. The operating candidate specification is QUDT, which is a public domain OWL ontology constructed by TopQuadrant under contract from NASA. That project made a significant effort to be compatible with the ideas in the reference international standards – the International Vocabulary for Measurements (VIM) (see http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/) , published by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), and ISO 80000, the International standard for measurements. But QUDT, like QUOMOS, does not have the imprimatur of BIPM or BIPM experts. (Because I am NIST, one of the participating bodies in BIPM, I have to say the last.) ISO 15926 predates the QUOMOS and QUDT efforts by 10-15 years, but it does not appear to have been particularly informed by the then published VIM version 2. (The current version is 3.) The base ontology is interesting and defensible, if not necessarily your cup of tea, but neither the ISO-published RDL (in 15926-4) nor the JORD RDL are currently ontologically sound. The JORD effort, and others, are green efforts to create an ontologically sound and viable RDL for at least plant designs (because that is the supporting industry group), and there is a tremendous amount of standards politics in this area with several competing organizations in the building and plant design industries. Those efforts involve different views of how to use the “template” concepts in 15926 to create the “applied ontology” that can be used to exchange plant designs. All of that said, this is a genuine effort by major organizations to make ontology standards that represent common agreement. But standards are like sausages – you don’t want to watch them in the making. -Ed -- Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx National Institute of Standards & Technology Systems Integration Division 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Work: +1 301-975-3528 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 Mobile: +1 240-672-5800 "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST, and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MacPherson, Deborah
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:33 AM
To: 'Ontology Summit 2013 discussion'
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology 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 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. 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 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. 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 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> 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 (
|
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|