Dear All, (01)
I fully agree with:
>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.
This was a mistake, and was a consequence of our
ignorance at the time (not that the result is
totally wrong, but the terminology is strange). (02)
The current development effort in producing an
OWL version of ISO 15926 is concentrating on the
base ontology, and is not seeking to create an
OWL version of ISO 15926 units. It is intended
that the OWL version of the ISO 15926 base
ontology would be used with QUDT or some other
authoritative ontology for quantities and units. (03)
Best regards,
David (04)
At 16:04 12/03/2013, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>
>boundary="_000_63955B982BF1854C96302E6A5908234417DB5F41B0MBCLUSTERxcha_"
>
>Deb,
>
>The Units of Measure Ontology project QUOMOS
>seeseems 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 ffor 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
>
><mailto:dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cannondesign.com
>Skype debmacp
>
>From:
><mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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 ffor not reinventing.
>
>Regards
>
>Matthew West
>Information Junction
>Tel: +44 1489 880185
>Mobile: +44 750 3385279
>Skype: dr.matthew.west
><mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
><http://www.matthew-west.org.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:
><mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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"
><<mailto:dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>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
><mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
><http://www.matthew-west.org.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:
><mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>[mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of MacPherson, 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
><http://ftp2.bentley.com/dist/collateral/docs/bentley_institute/White_paper_IFC.pdf>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
>
><mailto:dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
><http://Cannondesign.com>Cannondesign.com
>Skype debmacp
>
>From:
><mailto:ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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 <<mailto:Peter.Benson@xxxxxxxxx>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>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/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>
>
>Subscribe/Config:
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>
>
>Unsubscribe:
><mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Files:
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
>Community Wiki:
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
>
>
>Community Portal:
><http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>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/ (05)
============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 31 Shell Road, Lewisham, London SE13 7DF
registered in England no. 2422371
mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
landline: +44 (0)20 8469 9206
e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================ (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (07)
|