Dear All, (01)
I strongly support Ed's proposed approach, and especially his reference to
the VIM: (02)
> We should extract the UoM parts of these ontologies into a
>repository and look at them side-by-side. (The basic VIM concept set is
>only a dozen concepts or so. It should not be necessary to include all
>the infrastructure on which the UoM part is built -- the idea here is to
>identify the UoM concepts that are captured.) (03)
The need to produce a set of UoM concepts that is both a formal ontology and
related to the VIM concepts is important. It give us a chance of creating
"the ontology for units of measure" rather than "yet another ontology for
units of measure". The work also has a possibility of adding clarity to the VIM. (04)
<Aside>
Evan uses the term "quantity value" which is defined within the VIM. I have
read the definition many times: "number and reference together expressing
magnitude of a quantity". I think that this phrase should be read as follows: (05)
number_and_reference_together - expressing_magnitude_of - a_quantity (06)
but it could be read as: (07)
number_and_reference_together - expressing - magnitude_of_a_quantity (08)
Hence is the thing identified by (or "expressed by") 2.54 cm a "quantity" or
a "magnitude_of_a_quantity"? Somebody must know, or is there a deliberate
ambiguity. :)
</Aside> (09)
I would like to volunteer for a role in the ontology formulation as
suggested in Ed's proposal. It would fit well with my the work within the
CEN ELSSI Workshop, which is creating an ontology derived from ISO material
test data standards for the formal definition of material test procedures
and for the formal representation material test data. (010)
Best regards,
David (011)
At 15:15 10/07/2009 -0400, you wrote:
>With respect to language selection for UoM, Ed wrote:
>
>> (2) Language selection
>> Since we are going to propose a standard ontology, it should be
>> documented in one or more standard languages.
>> Technically, we have at this time only 3 good choices: CLIF, RDF,
>> and OWL. But it should be noted that "OWL" is an umbrella for several
>> languages, one of which (OWL/Full) might be considered the best choice
>> for an appropriate RDF dialect. We need to make choices among these for
>> the normative ontologies.
>> These languages have very different expressive powers. I suggest
>> that we choose one axiomatic form and one (extended) DL form, and do all
>> the formal ontology work in exactly those languages.
>> We also need a non-normative graphical representation, to enable
>> rapid comprehension. The ODM Profile for OWL (using UML tools) suggests
>> itself, but I usually use a more vanilla UML form for presentation of
>> basic concepts. And something adequate that is supported by
>> web-available tooling (like Protegé) is a good alternative.
>> I suggest that we choose a useful graphical form supported by
>> available tools and use it, exclusively, for presentation and discussion
>> in the group. Further, I suggest that we will include non-normative
>> diagrams in this language in the proposed standard, as an aid to reader
>> comprehension.
>I would second the idea of developing the ontology model simultaneously in
>an expressive language like IKL and an extended version of OWL DL. One form
>of the latter might actually mostly define an extension to OWL per [1].
>The goal
>would be to insure support in OWL DL reasoners for the UoM model that we
>develop,
>where that support would include dimensional analysis, conversion, and
>appropriate
>interpretation of the results (essentially identity correspondence of
>quantities with
>equivalent quantity values, e.g., 2.54 Centimeters and 1 Inch).
>Whatever we do for
>OWL, it is important that each model make sense on its own, and that
>each makes
>appropriate use of the language (or the language+extension) in which it
>is expressed.
>
>-Evan
>
>[1] http://www.webont.org/owled/2008/papers/owled2008eu_submission_34.pdf
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
>Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Config/Unsubscribe:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
>Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>
>
> (012)
============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
registered in England no. 2422371
tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================ (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (014)
|