Thanks Peter. Glad to know this continues to progress. Everyone needs it.
Thanks for the links. Deb (01)
Sent from my iPhone (02)
On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote: (03)
>> [DMP] Where does the Units of Measurement Ontology stand ...
>> ... There is NO reason to reinvent the wheel as you say.
>
> [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.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards. =ppy
> --
>
>
> 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
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>> 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/
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/ (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|