Dear Ralph, Just a typo. Below you refer to ISO 8000. I think you meant ISO 80000. ISO 8000 is a data quality standard. 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 Ralph TQ [Gmail]
Sent: 28 March 2013 20:39
To: Ontology Summit 2013 discussion
Subject: [ontology-summit] QUDT (was Re: Hackathon: BACnet Ontology) Just to give people an update on QUDT v1.2: We are now in the home run of releasing models. QA on QUDT is well underway. To give some impression of the activity, here is a screenshot of a QA session on the generation of the NASA QUDT Handbook (over 3500 pages). It is generating PDF via LaTeX from the OWL models. For those that may be interested this is done using SWP (SPARQL Web Pages) - http://uispin.org. This associates LaTeX code with OWL resources. The batch file is making command-line calls into the ontology server. To give you an impression of the number of ontologies in release v1.2, here is another screenshot of some models in TopBraid Composer: The partitioning is being done on a domain basis. Most if not all of the published ISO-8000 work has been codified in OWL. In addition the NIST SI Guidance rules are also encoded in OWL. An example of a quantity is shown in turtle syntax below. Note the use of the provenance ontology: quantity:MolarConductivity a qudt:ChemistryQuantityKind ; rdfs:label "Molar Conductivity"^^xsd:string ; qudt:applicableUnit unit:S-M2-PER-MOL ; qudt:description "\\textit{Molar Conductivity} is the conductivity of an electrolyte solution divided by the molar concentration of the electrolyte, and so measures the efficiency with which a given electrolyte conducts electricity in solution."^^xsd:string ; "$\\Gamma_m = \\frac{x}{c_B}$, where $x$ is the electrolytic conductivity and $c_B$ is the amount-of-substance concentration."^^xsd:string ; skos:broader quantity:Conductivity ; skos:prefLabel "Molar Conductivity"^^xsd:string ;
We will be publishing schemas and some of the vocabularies in the next weeks. I hope you can appreciate the grand scale of this work and we thank you for your patience. Expect more regular communications from us as we complete the beta release.
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. David 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. Specifications and Research 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. 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 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. 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. Specifications and Research 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/
_________________________________________________________________
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/ (01)
|
