uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-std] A measure (or magnitude) is not a quantity

To: edbark@xxxxxxxx, uom-ontology-std <uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "MacPherson, Deborah" <dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Deborah MacPherson <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:03:22 -0400
Message-id: <48f213f30909231903u7d2f5513w12d00a604686e65f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Are the OmniClass Properties, International Framework for Dictionaries (IFD) / Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) and standardizing Building Information Modeling (BIM) taxonomies within this line of reasoning?

The built environment is a huge conglomeration of classes and instances that need to be measured so they can be improved. What the specific measurements need to be are controlled through text specifications, geometric modeling, testing and life cycle analysis. Many of these metrics are not well defined for large scale or long term exchange.

As opposed to natural conglomerations of classes and instances like hurricanes, planets or atoms that can be measured but may or may not be able to conform to a set of performance requirements.

Man-made. Contract-able. Fact based. Judgemental. Open. A mass is a mass, measured through a, b, or c units to meet xyz criteria. Any of the units in the middle could need to be translated from test to test, spec to spec, model to model, location to location, product to product. That is what I would like to use UoM for.

Popular and worthwhile applications are sustainability and emergency communications but there is also the matter of bridges, buildings and process plants standing up or not exploding while performing the work they were built to do. What is an ideal set of applications for a UoM ontology as a standard to be "built-into"? Which existing standards will be impacted or may be able to converge because of it?

Deb MacPherson
Cannon Design, NBIMS, Open Floor Plan

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Matthew West wrote:
> I sometimes talk about doing applied philosophy, but my tongue is at
> least half way into my cheek when I say so.
>

I like "applied philosophy".  Now, if we could resume applying and stop
philosophising, it might further the intent of the project.

-Ed

--
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

"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
 and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."



--
********************************************************

Deborah L. MacPherson CSI CCS, AIA
Specifications and Research Cannon Design
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics

********************************************************

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>