ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Hackathon: BACnet Ontology

To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Joel Bender <jjb5@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:08:19 +0000
Message-id: <C8F304FC-2E37-4218-BDBD-400D5EEE63DF@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Lest anyone think that this thread has drifted too far off course, it continues 
to be spot on.    (01)

Ed wrote:    (02)

> Only some measurement data is easy to exchange, and even then one must be 
>careful that both the sender and the receiver have a common understanding of 
>the nature and purpose of the measurement.  This includes simple common sense 
>ideas like agreeing on (and documenting) the units to be used, or explicitly 
>exchanging units with the numeric measurements.    (03)

BACnet has this.  There is an enumeration called EngineeringUnits (which Lord 
Help Me also contains currency and all kinds of other happy crap) which maps 
labels to unsigned integer values.    (04)

    BACnetEngineeringUnits ::= ENUMERATED {
        -- Acceleration
            meters-per-second-per-second (166),
        --Area
            square-meters (0),
            square-centimeters (116),
        ...
        }    (05)

So one of my intrinsic challenges is to make these into something:    (06)

    tag:bacnet.org,2010:EngineeringUnits#squareCentimeters    (07)

then make sure it has some value property with the literal 116.  Then my 
extrinsic challenge is to say somewhere this is the owl:sameAs "square 
centimeters" from someplace else, or everyplace else that I can find.    (08)

> It also includes agreement on rounding values or stating uncertainties.    (09)

Which BACnet does NOT have.    (010)

> I know for a fact that this last problem is not solved in 15926, and you 
>don’t want to open the Pandora’s box that is the relationship between control 
>parameters and performance parameters.  This is not, in general, a solved 
>problem.    (011)

The BACnet Application Profiles working group has been mucking around in this 
for years and as part of my second effort (the BAFL that I spoke of before) 
will be pushing in this direction.    (012)

> They do have models that can be aligned for the purpose of their interaction, 
>but they have to be cognizant of the need for that alignment in their 
>exchanges.    (013)

A path can be laid before them, the bits of broken glass swept to the side, 
where only ontologists fear to tread!    (014)


Joel    (015)



_________________________________________________________________
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/     (016)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>