uom-ontology-admin
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-admin] Some questions from Patrick Durusau

To: uom-ontology-admin <uom-ontology-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:42:34 -0500
Message-id: <4B16C32A.2020401@xxxxxxxx>

Howard Mason wrote:
> The following answers are suggested:
>
> Q: Is the gist of this proposal that existing standards for measurement
> are 
> going to be re-written in CLIF (Common Logic Interchange Format) and 
> from there normative representations are going to be created in OWL 2.0 
> DL and UML?
>
> That is to say that the TC really isn't creating any measurement 
> ontologies but simply expressing existing measurement systems as
> ontologies?
>
> A: Correct in principle, subject to identification of ambiguities and
> inconsistencies.
>       (01)

That is, the QUOMOS relationship to the ISO/BIPM standards for 
measurement and units of measurement is that QUOMOS will encode the 
knowledge contained in those standards as a formal ontology in CLIF and 
OWL.     (02)

(There is a difference of opinion in the AI world as to whether an 
"ontology" is an encoding of knowledge or is the knowledge that is being 
encoded, independent of the encoding. This makes Patrick's statement 
ambiguous and a response in terms of "ontologies" equally confusing.)    (03)

Our purpose is to encode part of the knowledge contained in ISO 80000 
and the International Vocabulary for Measurements, and to formally 
clarify those concepts where the natural language expression is 
ambiguous.  We do expect to go beyond ISO 80000 in providing for non-SI 
measurement units as well.    (04)

> Q: BTW, while looking for background information (and running across Pat
>
> Hayes, Peter Yim, etc. the usual ontology gang) I also saw PSL (Process 
> Specification Language), http://www.mel.nist.gov/psl/ontology.html. Not 
> relevant but thought it looked interesting.
>
> A: ISO 18629 is the ISO standardised version of PSL, standardised
> through ISO TC 184/SC 4.  Not relevant to this initiative.
>
> Q: What other ontologies exist for measurement?
> A: See list in clause 2(h) of the charter.  This list may not be
> exhaustive, and the group is open to other contributions
>
> Q: Other than the use of CLIF, how is this work going to differ from
> those projects?
> A: QUOMOS is endeavouring to deliver a single integrated modular set of
> consistent ontologies, with a consistent extension mechanism to allow
> sectoral extensions.
>       (05)

More importantly, the intent of QUOMOS is to deliver an *international 
standard* ontology that has been carefully reviewed by experts in the 
ISO/BIPM measurement standards communities, and not just yet another OWL 
ontology for measurement units created by the experts on project X.  
None of the existing ontologies is a standard, or a standards project as 
yet -- they only have small communities of practice.  QUOMOS is a means 
by which that work can be formally standardized and widely reused, with 
a much larger community of common practice.  (And in many cases, formal 
specifications of concept equivalence will allow existing ontologies to 
be integrated without change.)    (06)

It is also important that this ontology be reconciled with existing and 
emerging standards for the representation of measurements and 
measurement units in (Web) publications and (XML) data.  For this 
purpose, we will have participation from leaders of those standards 
activities (UCUM and UnitsML).  As Howard says, QUOMOS is not about 
redoing the technical work; it is about bringing it together and making 
a viable standard, by working with the related standards activities.    (07)

> Q: What permissions have been obtained for the use of the content of
> other standards organizations in the QUOMOS work?
> A: We trust that ISO permission to use existing standards in creating
> derivative works will be extended to this activity.  The owners of the
> various ontologies have been represented in the launch of the charter,
> and have agreed to the IPR rules proposed for the TC.
>       (08)

Yes.  The major reason for creating a formal standards activity in OASIS 
at this time is to have a formal open process with a consortium 
agreement on IPR rules, and a formal relationship with ISO that covers 
use of existing ISO text.    (09)

-Ed    (010)

-- 
Edward J. Barkmeyer                        Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263                Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263                FAX: +1 301-975-4694    (011)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-admin/  
Config/Unsubscribe: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-admin/ 
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/  
Issue Tracking /Doc Repository: http://uom.emcs.cornell.edu/ 
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard     (012)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>