Ontolog Panel Discussion: Towards A Quantities and Units of Measure Ontology-based Standard - Fri 19-Jun-2009    (1Y46)

Archives    (1YGU)

Conference Call Details    (1YGZ)

Resources    (1YHW)

Attendees    (1YI5)

Abstract and Thoughts on this Session:    (1YIG)

Topic: Towards A Quantities and Units of Measure Ontology-based Standard    (1YIH)

 by: SteveRay, PeterYim, HowardMason, FrankOlken & EdBarkmeyer    (1YII)

During the OntologySummit2009_Symposium, the "Quantities and Units of Measure" was identified as a candidate ontology-based standard that folks from the standards community and the ontology community can (and should) work together on. Further momentum has been developing through the active discussion among the community members on this matter in the [ontology-summit] mailing list, prompting us to put this session together. It is important that we get a critical mass of representatives at the call, from each of the following constituencies:    (1YIJ)

1. The acknowledged authorities who maintain governance over the system of measures. Primarily that would seem to be BIPM, along with various national NMIs (National Measurement Institutes) who collectively maintain key documents such as the GUM (Guidelinefor Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results), the VIM (International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology), UCUM (Unified Code for Units of Measure), and the like. Other related organizations would be IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP and OIML    (1YIK)

2. The community who believes there is a requirement to have a harmonized ontology for units and measures.    (1YIL)

3. The individuals and teams who believe they have an ontology, or a piece of an ontology, that formally describes some or all of such a universe of discourse.    (1YIM)

4. The community of ontologists who have the necessary skills to be able to create a rigorous, well-posed ontology, or to evaluate the quality of existing ontologies or structures    (1YIN)

With the above in mind, we hope participants in this session will contribute to working up a plan and a course of action that can make our "Quantities and Units of Measure Ontology-based Standard" a reality.    (1YIO)

Here are some of the perspectives from our panelists:    (1YKC)

Agenda & Proceedings    (1YIP)

Agenda    (1YIQ)

1. Opening by session Chair (FrankOlken)    (1YIR)

2. Briefings from Panelists -- StanHuff, DavidPrice, DaveMcComb, BobDragoset, RobRaskin, PatCassidy, HowardMason, PatHayes    (1YIS)

3. Q & A and Open Discussion (All) -- please refer to process above    (1YIT)

4. Summary and Next Steps (FrankOlken)    (1YIU)

Proceedings    (1YIV)

Please refer to the archives above    (1YIW)

Input from Panelists in absentia - we received input from a couple of folks who weren't able to join us on the panel today:    (1YIY)

 From: ForestLin / Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:27:14 +0800
 //
 ...I'd still like to share the following with you all.    (1YOE)
 ==Concerns==:    (1YOF)
 1. Within the international context, we might need a multi-language mechanism for the widely re-use of the UoM ontology.
     Link: UCUM - http://unitsofmeasure.org/ 
     Link: MultiLingual – UCUM - http://unitsofmeasure.org/wiki/MultiLingual    (1YOG)
 2. In a country, for different regions, especially different jurisdictional areas, there may be different Systems of Units, 
 although usually there is only one legal system. For example, in China, for the Mainland, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, each  
 has its own legal system. Within the Mainland, the legal sytem is mainly identical to the SI. On the other hand, There are 
 different systems for different application domains, such as Avoirdupois, Troy, Apothecaries and the like.
    Link: Chinese units of measurement 
    Link: Systems of measurement - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_measurement    (1YOH)
 3. In addition, LOINC mapping tool (RELMA) is also involving a number of units of measurement currently used by medical 
 laboratories, especially in complex units, such as mmol/L.
    Link: Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC®) — LOINC - [loinc.org]    (1YOI)
 ==Related works==:    (1YOJ)
 1. Chinese translations of LOINC database and its user manuals.
    Link: International — LOINC - http://loinc.org/international    (1YOK)
 2. Chinese translations of the Unified Code for Units of Measure (UCUM) Specification document and its XML data.
    Link: UCUM 
    Link: MultiLingual – UCUM - http://unitsofmeasure.org/wiki/MultiLingual 
    Link: Chinese translation - http://unitsofmeasure.org/ticket/20    (1YOL)
 3. Development of the interoperability specification on laboratory reports and preparation of its Proof-of-Concept (POC) testing (For China).    (1YOM)
 4. Chinese translation of the IHE Laboratory framework - static document (CDA).    (1YON)
 Thank you so much for your invitation!    (1YOO)
 Best wishes,
 ..Lin Zhang
 //    (1YOP)
 //
 From: Geoff Williams
 Sent: 18 June 2009 13:25
 To: Mason, Howard (UK); peter.yim
 Cc: j.larmouth; pellaux-at-iso.org; Anders J Thor; Paul Gerome; Ian Mills
 Subject: RE: [ontology-summit] Ontolog Session: Towards a Quantities and Unitsof Measure Ontology-based Standard - Thu  19-Jun-2009 
 Importance: High    (1YOR)
 Howard    (1YOS)
 I am afraid that I cannot participate in the teleconference.  I draw the attention of the Ontolog Session to the following 
 information (apologies for those who are already conversant with this information.)    (1YOT)
 The International System of Units, the SI is defined by the BIPM and is the responsibility of the CCU 
 (http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/ccu).  Prof Ian Mills is the current President of the CCU.    (1YOU)
 The SI Brochure (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/general.html) defines the seven base units that provide the reference 
 used to define all the measurement units of the International System.  The SI Brochure also defines numerous derived units.    (1YOV)
 The multipart ISO/IEC 80000 replaces the former multipart ISO 31 and some parts of IEC 60027.  ISO/IEC 80000 defines the 
 quantities used in various scientific and technological fields in terms of the relevant SI units and identifies the 
 appropriate SI symbol.  ISO/IEC 80000 is the joint responsibility of ISO/TC 12 and IEC/TC 25.    (1YOW)
 The UK has requested that ISO/IEC 80000 also identifies the appropriate Unicode value for each of the symbols identified in 
 each part of the standard.    (1YOX)
 Participants in the ONTOLOG session may like to consider the following information.  ISO 704 defines the Principles and 
 Methods to be used for the definition of technical terms.  The standard requires definitions to be placed in a conceptual 
 framework.  ISO 3543-1 and ISO 3543-2 are terminology standards for use in the field of statistics and conceptual analysis 
 was employed during the development of the terms defined.   The concept diagrams are given in annexes of both parts of 
 ISO 3543.  Would this approach be beneficial to the information science communities and fulfil the need for the different 
 ontologies?    (1YOY)
 Regards
 Geoffrey Williams
 Programme Manager,
 Business Process Improvement Standards
 Standards Operations
 //    (1YOZ)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session: (lightly edited for clairty    (1YIZ)

 VNC2: Welcome to the Ontolog Panel Discussion: Towards A Quantities and Units of Measure Ontology-based Standard
      - Fri 19-Jun-2009    (1ZC8)
 * Session Chair: Dr. FrankOlken (NSF)    (1ZC9)
 * Panelists: 
   o Dr. StanHuff (Univ. of Utah) -- "Experience and Requirements for Units of Measure in Patient Data Exchange" 
   o Mr. DavidPrice (Eurostep) -- "OASIS PLCS Committee Requirements for a Units Ontology" 
   o Mr. DaveMcComb (Semantic Arts) -- "The gist Unit of Measure Ontology" 
   o Dr. RobertDragoset (NIST) -- "Units Markup Language" 
   o Dr. RobRaskin (NASA/JPL) -- "SWEET 2.0 Scientific Units Ontology" 
   o Dr. PatCassidy (MICRA) -- "Aligning NASA SWEET sciUnits Ontology with COSMO" 
   o Mr. HowardMason (ISO, BEA) -- "Units of Measure - How many standards?" 
   o Dr. PatHayes (IHMC) -- "Making Distinctions"    (1ZCA)
 VNC2: Please point your browser to the session page at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_06_19    (1ZCB)
 anonymous1 morphed into DaveMcComb    (1ZCC)
 anonymous1 morphed into DavidPrice    (1ZCD)
 FrankOlken: I am on the chat room now, will join the teleconference momentarily.    (1ZCE)
 DavidPrice: On call and chat    (1ZCF)
 DaveMcComb: I'm on the call (I think)    (1ZCG)
 anonymous1 morphed into Joe Collins    (1ZCH)
 anonymous2 morphed into Mark Linehan    (1ZCI)
 anonymous1 morphed into KurtConrad    (1ZCJ)
 anonymous morphed into StanHuff, Yim, Mark    (1ZCK)
 Stan Huff, Yim, Mark morphed into StanHuff, Yan, Mark    (1ZCL)
 Chip Masters: ChipMasters My email is cmasters[at]topquadrant.com.    (1ZCM)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): James Davenport (OpenMath) here    (1ZCN)
 Mark Linehan: This is Mark Linehan from IBM (mlinehan@us.ibm.com). I'm 
               leading a team at OMG that is attempting to come up with a model for 
               Date and Time. It turned out that we needed a model for quantities and 
               units of measure before doing date and time. So we have something to 
               contribute for quantities & units of measure.    (1ZCO)
 anonymous1 morphed into Mitch Kokar    (1ZCP)
 FrankOlken: This is Frank Olken at the National Science Foundation. I 
             will be chairing the teleconference once we are set up.    (1ZCQ)
 FrankOlken: I suggest that everyone on the teleconference introduce 
             themselves on the chat room discussion.    (1ZCR)
 anonymous1 morphed into SusanTurnbull    (1ZCS)
 Roger Burkhart: I'm involved in OMG SysML (UML for Systems Engineering)
                 including a model for quantities and units    (1ZCT)
 FrankOlken: EvanWallace you are entirely silent .....???    (1ZCU)
 anonymous1 morphed into Douglas Mann    (1ZCV)
 FrankOlken: We have two anonymous participants in the chat room. Please 
             go to settings and change your login to your actual name.    (1ZCW)
 Laurent morphed into LaurentLiscia    (1ZCX)
 anonymous morphed into EvanWallace    (1ZCY)
 EvanWallace: Thanks Mitch    (1ZCZ)
 FrankOlken: Note that due to the number of speakers for this teleconference 
             we will ask each speaker to limit their remarks to 10 minutes.    (1ZD0)
 LaurentLiscia: On behalf of OASIS: DavidPrice and DaveMcComb: thanks for being on the call!    (1ZD1)
 JoelBender: Joel here, and in spite of being late, I'm glad I havn't missed it!    (1ZD2)
 FrankOlken: The first speaker will be StanHuff of Intermountain Health Care from Salt Lake City in Utah.    (1ZD3)
 FrankOlken: The second speaker is DavidPrice from OASIS Product Lifecycle Committee.    (1ZD4)
 FrankOlken: Dave McComb is the 3rd speaker of the teleconference, will speak on the gist units of measure ontology.    (1ZD5)
 SteveRay: Typhoid Mary must have been at the Semantic Technologies Conference. 
           I picked up a bad cold there also!    (1ZD6)
 SteveRay: In DaveMcComb's work, there seems to be a blending of units and dimensions.
           Seems to me these are distinct concepts.    (1ZD7)
 FrankOlken: Dave, You need to wrap up your talk now.    (1ZD8)
 PeterYim: I doubt if Dave will be reading the chat screen while talking ...    (1ZD9)
 DaveMcComb: Sorry, you're right I have a tough time reading and speaking at the same time    (1ZDA)
 FrankOlken: Is BobDragoset on the call now?    (1ZDB)
 FrankOlken: We are passing over BobDragoset, who is apparently not on the call.    (1ZDC)
 FrankOlken: Our speaker is now RobRaskin, speaking about the NASA SWEET units ontology.    (1ZDD)
 RaviSharma: Welcome Dr. RobRaskin, Ravi here - great presentation. Thanks.    (1ZDE)
 FrankOlken: DaveMcComb,    (1ZDF)
 DaveMcComb: I did have a dimension class in the ontology a couple of 
             years ago, but I found there wasn't much of a need for it.    (1ZDG)
 FrankOlken: @DaveMcComb, Please post the URL of the gist units ontology 
             to the chat room discussion.    (1ZDH)
 DaveMcComb: The gist unit of emeasure ontologogy is at http://ontologies.semanticarts.com/gist/gistUOM.owl    (1ZDI)
 DaveMcComb: There is some documentation on gist at http://www.gist-ont.com    (1ZDJ)
 FrankChum: Minimalist!!!    (1ZDK)
 DaveMcComb: As I look at it and think about it, I guess the dimensions 
             just sort of folded into the subtypes of UnitsOfMeasure (I didn't really 
             intend that but it sort of worked out that way)_    (1ZDL)
 RaviSharma: Some confusion between Power as raised to Power in Math vs 
             Power and energy flow measure. Can you kindly provide some other example 
             as well next time? just a suggestion. but some notes may clarify. Glad 
             to learn that JPL and ESIP are collaborating on these.    (1ZDM)
 FrankOlken: PatCassidy is now speaking on the alignment of the NASA SWEET Units ontology to COSMO ....    (1ZDN)
 SteveRay: @DaveMcComb: The reason that looks problematic to me is that there 
           can be several different units to measure a given dimension.    (1ZDO)
 MikeBennett: @SteveRay - I think the concept of dimension is critical, 
              and then common concepts like amount and quantity, before we even get 
              down into specific domains. As Dave says, currency exchange rate has a 
              time dimension.    (1ZDP)
 DaveMcComb: @SteveRay Yeah, but if they each have the same base (so if 
             fortnights and hours each have "second" as their base unit, they will be 
             inferred to be "duration" units) which I think gets the dimension idea, 
             without having to have another class or property    (1ZDQ)
 anonymous morphed into BobDragoset    (1ZDR)
 FrankOlken: @BobDragoset, We will have you speak after PatCassidy, who is speaking now.    (1ZDS)
 FrankOlken: Pat, We have a problem in that the base unit for mass in SI is the kilogram.    (1ZDT)
 RaviSharma: PatCassidy - If we could agree to represent the Units 
             (generally) in form of tuples then perhaps time and calendar typpe 
             conversions and ontological meanings would be clearer?    (1ZDU)
 JoelBender: An extension/implementation of the unix 'units' command to 
             support this effort would be excellent.    (1ZDV)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason, from ISO will now speak.    (1ZDW)
 Joe Collins1: Actually, all units have time dependence, not just 
               currencies WRT rates of exchange. It's just that rates of exchange 
               change on a much shorter time-scale.    (1ZDX)
 anonymous morphed into BobDragoset    (1ZDY)
 Joe Collins1: ISO documents are not cheap. I suspect this is why people 
               generally refer to abstracts of them.    (1ZDZ)
 RaviSharma: HowardMason - often units are used across-communities, 
             standards are followed cross communities. Ontology would allow reasoning 
             to compare different ways of expressing physical entity such as energy 
             and also different automation mechanisms based on language type etc. 
             hence there is a cse for XML or ontological representation of units.    (1ZE0)
 FrankOlken: BobDragoset is now speaking on the UnitsML Units Markup Language.    (1ZE1)
 FrankChum: @HowardMason: Scope specific standards can prevent ontology from 
            being unneccessarily bloated.    (1ZE2)
 HowardMason: I am merely keen to ensure that we avoid duplication and conflict    (1ZE3)
 FrankChum: @HowardMason, I concur!    (1ZE4)
 FrankOlken: What sort of units need non-integer exponents of the "root" units?    (1ZE5)
 RaviSharma: Frank - any measures of geometry such as PI!    (1ZE6)
 JoelBender: ah, that's how I get my warp factor, v = w^3 * c    (1ZE7)
 FrankOlken: @BobDragoset, You need to start wrapping up.    (1ZE8)
 anonymous morphed into Martin S Weber (NIST)    (1ZE9)
 MikeBennett: It seems to me there is a real art to not designing 
              something. That's the difficult part of ontology.    (1ZEA)
 Joe Collins1: Rational powers of units & dimensions may be encountered 
               in manipulating model equations. I would not want to put a finite bound 
               on what is expressible.    (1ZEB)
 FrankChum: @BobDragoset, seems to me that the UnitML you presented is 
            for the scope of physical science.    (1ZEC)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @JoelBender (timestamps) : speaking about 
            UnitsML: there will be something like the unix units command, and 
            UnitsML does include capabilities for timestamps so this should well be 
            possible.    (1ZED)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes is now speaking on "Making Distinctions".    (1ZEE)
 Joe Collins1: Q@RobRaskin: What will be maintained by the ESIP 
               Federation, just units and dimensions, or all of SWEET?    (1ZEF)
 Joe Collins1: Q@ BobDragoset: What tool did you use to represent your 
               schema diagrams?    (1ZEG)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @FrankChum: The initial scope was/is 'encoding 
           scientific units of measure'. I myself will (ab)use it for CS "units" 
           too. I don't see much in the schema limiting UnitsML from being 
           used to model other units    (1ZEH)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @Joe Collins1: this was done with XMLSpy* (yeah 
           you asked Bob, I'm on the group, too, though.) [ *Certain commercial 
           software was identified as being used by the UnitsML Group at the 
           National Institute Of Technology. Such identification is not intended to 
           imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of 
           Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the software 
           identified is necessarily the best available for the purpose. ]    (1ZEI)
 FrankOlken: From BobDragoset's slides: For the most recent UnitsML 
             schema and documentation with images, go to: http://unitsml.nist.gov    (1ZEJ)
 FrankOlken: From BobDragoset's slides: For information about SI units 
             and non-SI units for the U.S., go to: http://physics.nist.gov/sp811    (1ZEK)
 RaviSharma: Pat- Money is a measure but its units are measured by 
             currency type, but gold is ounces or gms?    (1ZEL)
 Joe Collins1: Gold - troy ounces!!    (1ZEM)
 MikeBennett: @Ravi: the world moved from measuring money in weights of 
              metals, to recognising the property ofr money as an information 
              construct. If it has a dimension of a basic "stuff" it's information.    (1ZEN)
 Joe Collins1: Yes, Money is a social construct and not measurable in the 
               same way as physical quantities.    (1ZEO)
 anonymous morphed into LinePouchard    (1ZEP)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @Ravi We were jokingly talking about money last 
           UnitsML TC Meeting. You -could- model that as dimension & quantity 
           (counted item) money.. and model 1 unit per currency involved. UnitsML 
           wasn't designed for that, you -could- model it ..    (1ZEQ)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): several problems with the extreme time-dependance 
           with "unit" conversions arise though    (1ZER)
 DavidLeal: A distinction that nobody has yet made is between unit and 
            scale (oops Pat just has). Decibel is a scale, but not a unit. A very 
            important scale is ITS90 - the practical temperature scale, which is an 
            appoximation to the linear scale derived from the unit Kelvin.    (1ZES)
 MikeBennett: @Martin - then you would (jokingly) fall in to the trap of 
              "designing" some solution to the problem. We have seen a lot of clever 
              stuff in ontology, when what we should be doing is teasing out the 
              simplcity of reality itself.    (1ZET)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): @Martin S Weber (NIST): time AND space - 
             consider pount/guinea arbitrage in 17th century England    (1ZEU)
 Joe Collins1: Units and Quantities ARE a physical theory, mathematically 
               constructed. Math constructs are inseparable from meaningful discussion.    (1ZEV)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @JD: true. (We talked about using external WSDL 
           described services to do these conversions. You could model time in 
           unitsml. not space (directly) though)    (1ZEW)
 MikeBennett: @PatHayes - some real clarity there.    (1ZEX)
 PatHayes: @MikeBennett: reality isnt simple, and it doesn't have units    (1ZEY)
 RaviSharma: Thanks Martin and Mike. units are required for common 
             understanding such as measuring a given string or reproducing it by 
             production, etc. and so is wealth or money by measuring the amount 
             required for exchange conversion or barter.    (1ZEZ)
 Douglas Mann: ISO 31 has quantity, dimension, and unit. (see: ISO 31-0 
             "section 2.2.6 Dimension of a quantity")    (1ZF0)
 Douglas Mann: ISO 31-0 says velocity is a Quantity and L/T is the 
             Dimension of velocity.    (1ZF1)
 Douglas Mann: Are people aware of this website? 
             http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/ ... Just a few units.    (1ZF2)
 anonymous morphed into RobRaskin    (1ZF3)
 EvanWallace: VIM    (1ZF4)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): Not sure if I was heard, but fuel efficiency 
             can be in miles/gallon or litres/100km.    (1ZF5)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @just speaking: dimension analysis is dangerous 
             here: Think energy / torque. You really have to talk about quantities, 
             not dimensions when trying to compare unit'ized values    (1ZF6)
 MikeBennett: @PatHayes - good point. I guess Einstein's dictum applies. 
             I just get worried when I see some clever "solution" to the "Problem". 
             That's what the next level of system design is about whereas the 
             ontology should be accurately depicting the problem. You said it cleare 
             than I could tho.    (1ZF7)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): And the two CAN be directly compared, even 
             though they are reciprocal.    (1ZF8)
 Mark Linehan: The VIM standard that I mentioned is called "International vocabulary 
             of metrology Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM)"    (1ZF9)
 JoshLieberman: Many indirect but few direct references to the fact that 
             units / dimensions / quantities are only meaningful together within a 
             coordinate reference system. How and should this work into a units ontology?    (1ZFA)
 JoelBender: We don't need MathML?    (1ZFB)
 EvanWallace: Josh: either we have to adopt one reference quantity 
             (dimension) system or we need to    (1ZFC)
 Mark Linehan: it is standard number JCGM 200:2008 issued by BIPM - the 
             Bureau International des Poids et Measure -- the people who put out SI    (1ZFD)
 EvanWallace: allow (as VIM does) the definition and reference of 
             different quantity systems.    (1ZFE)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): Joel: at some point math comes in and when it 
             comes to marking this up, will you invent something new or use something 
             existing like OM or MathML?    (1ZFF)
 Joe Collins1: The distinction between energy and torque can be made 
             using the SI concept of Kind of Quantity.    (1ZFG)
 JoshLieberman: This is unavoidable for spatial units, but I wonder to what extent
             it is behind other multiple unit conventions in other domains.    (1ZFH)
 RaviSharma: Speakers: Object of measure is either a physical object or 
             geotemporal - geometric object. However processes can alkso be measured 
             thru these. any thoughts?    (1ZFI)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @Joe Collins1: that was what I was pointing at. 
             Unit & dimension is not enough alone.    (1ZFJ)
 PatHayes: Do dimensions have 'reasonable' ranges of scale? Eg mm and 
             parsecs are both lengths, but maybe should be treated as 
			 different dimensions (?)    (1ZFK)
 MikeBennett: I think the fundamental ontological problem is "Amount" v 
             "Quantity", extended out into what they are a numeric number or a 
             measured amount of, and in the case of some continuous quantity, what 
             unit that is measured in. Each thing so measured is measured along some 
             dimension.    (1ZFL)
 JoshLieberman: @PatHayes - coordinate reference systems have different 
             scales, which might indicate why mm and parsec are not convertible in 
             most practices.    (1ZFM)
 Joe Collins1: The amount of a quantity is definable using the SI 
             concepts unit(Q) and num(Q).    (1ZFN)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @MikeBennett to me you have a reading, a 
             measurement of something. All possible readings make up the quantity. 
             You reason about this reading with reference to a "1" thing, which is 
             the unit. And the dimension is there to describe the class of all 
             possible readings. Doesn't that describe amount vs. quantity?    (1ZFO)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): @PatHayes: that's a consequence, not a 
             property. months are days are botrh time, bt aren't interconvertible    (1ZFP)
 EvanWallace: As mentioned depending on units alone is ambiguous since 
             derived units can represent different quantities.    (1ZFQ)
 PatHayes: @James Davenport: months are a notorious special case, because 
             they aren't even units. BUt my point would be, should we treat say 
             milliseconds and millennia as belonging in different dimensions?    (1ZFR)
 DaveMcComb: to PatHayes: I agree, but from a pragmatic point, if I have 
             a dimension and unit, to communicate I need to get people to agree on 
             two things (ie the concept of length and an agreement on "meter") where 
             if I derive length from convertTo meter, once they've agreed on "meter" 
             I've got both.    (1ZFS)
 MikeBennett: @Douglas Mann: dimensionality versus Dimension. Dimension 
             is a feature of reality so if we ignore it we will be stuck forever in 
             some technical design "workaound" that is not an ontology at all.    (1ZFT)
 MikeBennett: sorry I have to jump off at 11 so I won't have time to get 
             to the top of the list.    (1ZFU)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): @PatHayes I disagree that months aren't 
             units, but they are certainly notorious. For your second, no: they ARE 
             the same dimension, since there's a contunuous spectrum between them.    (1ZFV)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @PatHayes: milliseconds and millenia, there's 
             just a tiny constant between them (well or function depending on which 
             calender you choose to use). So I'd throw them in the same pot...    (1ZFW)
 RaviSharma: Speakers: can NOTHING have quantity or dimension? Obviously 
             it is something physical or concept of reality in space-time --- that 
             only requires measurability and therefore units - the subject of today's 
             ontology dialog!    (1ZFX)
 PatHayes: @DaveMcComb: True. You have efficiency on your side, I have 
             robustness. I guess my point could be phrased: robustness is more 
             important than efficiency when we are waning to keep a wide scope.    (1ZFY)
 PatHayes: waning/wanting    (1ZFZ)
 DaveMcComb: I also find that people find it easier to agree to concrete 
             things than abstract things. so getting them to agree to a couple of 
             scratches on a piece of platinum (a meter) is actually easier than 
             getting them to agree on something more abstract, derived from that 
             (length)    (1ZG0)
 Joe Collins1: The vacuum (nothing?) has physical properties.    (1ZG1)
 MikeBennett: We should end up with the same view of dimensions and units 
             and things as we learnt about in school. Length is a dimension. Time is 
             orthoginal to length and so is another dimension. As it charge and mass.    (1ZG2)
 Mark Linehan: PatHayes: In our OMG date-time effort, we ended up 
             distinguishing "precise units" (e.g. second) from "nominal units" (e.g. 
             months). Common language has both but they have different properties for 
             reasoning purposes.    (1ZG3)
 JoshLieberman: Re: millisecond and millenium - there may be a nominal 
             conversion, but over any real length of time, the number of seconds in a 
             year will vary, so a particular millenium will have different numbers - 
             coordinate reference system!    (1ZG4)
 PatHayes: @Joe Collins1: If it has properties, the it's not nothing (spoken as a 
             logician).    (1ZG5)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @Joe Collins: The vacuum is a certain reading of 
             amount of o2 (and pressure?), isn't it? So it's not nothing    (1ZG6)
 JoshLieberman: Is a unit ontology of "inherent properties" or "observed phenomena"?    (1ZG7)
 DaveMcComb: Who was just speaking? That was good    (1ZG8)
 Joe Collins1: @ Martin S Weber (NIST) - Not just that. there are quantum 
             fluctuations regardless of gas pressure.    (1ZG9)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): @Mark, so both a year and a month are nominal,
             but nevertheless a year is precisely 12 months (PS: did we meet 
             at YKT?)    (1ZGA)
 EvanWallace: +1 to speaker comment    (1ZGB)
 ChipMasters: ChipMasters (Me)    (1ZGC)
 Mark Linehan: @James -- yes, and yes.    (1ZGD)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @Joe C: what I meant to say, if you can 'measure' 
             it being there, it's not nothing ... you can't measure nothing 
             But then again, 0 has properties..    (1ZGE)
 DaveMcComb: Chip, your points, I think was that the dimension is baked 
             into the system (not independent)? Interesting    (1ZGF)
 SusanTurnbull: Perhaps use the term dimensions (plural) vs. 
             dimentionality (as in higher orders of dimension - i.e. high energy 
             physics, string theory, n-dimentionality, etc.)    (1ZGG)
 RaviSharma: Speakers: it is one object but does not get described in all 
             aspercts by dimensions that imply origin and geometric concepts - but 
             there are properties that do not belong to common dimension such as spin 
             and quantum levels etc?    (1ZGH)
 Joe Collins1: The effects of quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are 
             measurable. Whether you want to refer to the vacuum as "nothing" is a 
             matter of definitions.    (1ZGI)
 RaviSharma: Susan - yes similar to what i wanted to express.    (1ZGJ)
 DaveMcComb: On Frank's point of scope: should we have a scientific scope 
             and a general use scope (I'd suggest the general including the 
             scientific so it's not inconsistent when they use the same units)    (1ZGK)
 RaviSharma: zero has no properties really it is approximating the object 
             with zero that has property.    (1ZGL)
 RaviSharma: Speakers: Electron - what are its units/ dimension (geo) or 
             energy or charge, etc. therefore every object can have different units 
             for different purposes?    (1ZGM)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @Ravi: is the neutral element to e.g. integer 
             addition, that by which you cannot divide, to you zero (which thus would 
             have properties), or the object trying to represent itself?    (1ZGN)
 RaviSharma: Martin - not clear on Neutral element but zero and infinity 
             are more powerful concepts than any enumerables - this is the basis of 
             indian philosphy - at least one of them!    (1ZGO)
 PatHayes: I am wondering what kind of dimension mg-per-gram can be? Does 
             that make sense in CGI?    (1ZGP)
 EvanWallace: NIST is not an SDO.    (1ZGQ)
 RaviSharma: Pat - measure in a mixture such as alloy, imprity, etc for 
             example, very useful.    (1ZGR)
 SteveRay: NIST would still need to identify an SDO to work with.    (1ZGS)
PeterYim: @PatHayes - another example of imprecise units is, maybe,
             "lunch time" (this was an example brought up when we were trying to 
             convince the EHR people that they need to seriously consider ontologies 
             back in 2004)    (1ZGU)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @PeterYim: It's not imprecise, it's just not 
             constant. and I wouldn't call it a unit but a measurement to which you 
             can relate.    (1ZGV)
 PeterYim: @Martin S Weber (NIST): indeed ... thanks    (1ZGW)
 PatHayes: @ravi: I understand, but if you do dimensional analysis, its 
             mass/mass= dimensionless. Which of course it is, since it "measures" a 
             ratio. IMO this is one illustration of why different communities will 
             need different ontologies. Some thing is useful for one community but 
             incoherent to another.    (1ZGX)
 DavidPrice: So W3C, OMG or OASIS are the options for open stds.    (1ZGY)
 JoshLieberman: concentration is a quantity / measurand / phenomenon 
             which, having dimensions of gg-1, is dimensionless    (1ZGZ)
 PatHayes: I doubt very much if the W3C would consider this within its 
             purview. Just a personal opinion.    (1ZH0)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @ Josh, Pat : to be pedantic: It is dimensionless 
             but it's measuring the ratio of two different quantities    (1ZH1)
 RaviSharma: Pat your example of mg per gm is pertinent. I agree with you 
             that we will have different ontologies but also a need to converge or 
             interoperate so as to not have knowledge sioes?    (1ZH2)
 RaviSharma: siloes?    (1ZH3)
 DavidLeal: I support the use of MathML too. We don't want to reinvent 
             things, and MathML has useful capabilities like lambda calculus.    (1ZH4)
 SteveRay: I concur with HowardMason's strategy.    (1ZH5)
 PatHayes: MathML is too general, and does not support the needed 
             ontological expressiveness.    (1ZH6)
 RaviSharma: Pat - dimensionless analysis is usual in high energy and 
             gravitational work and is a way to normalize or scale.    (1ZH7)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @PatHayes don't use it to express everything, use 
             it to express the parts of math you need and embed it. Better than 
             trying to come up with something to describe formulae if you need to 
             imho    (1ZH8)
 PeterYim: @HowardMason - the recommendation you made (verbally) just now is 
             important ... would you document it here on the chat, please (so it can 
             go into the proceedings, besides just being captured on the recording) 
             ... thanks    (1ZH9)
 JoshLieberman: That does bring up the question of what are the initial 
             applications and therefore requirements (logical, expressive, 
             computable) of this ontology? Are "weird" units indeed an initial 
             target, or a later problem for example?    (1ZHA)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): @PatHayes: I disagree, but we should have 
             this discussion offline. J.H.Davenport@bath.ac.uk    (1ZHB)
 PatHayes: @Ravi: engineering and bioinformatics can likely be in 
             different siloes for the forseeable future without harm. Trying to find 
             one standard/ontology to cover both is likely to be too large a stretch, 
             IMO. Put StanHuff and BobDragoset in a room and wait for the color of 
             the smoke to change?    (1ZHC)
 PatHayes: @James: OK, lets. Note I wasnt suggesting ignoring MathML altogether.    (1ZHD)
 Pat Cassidy: On the issue of ratios of quantities of substances as a 
             'unit', it may be necessary to have a complex 'unit' (or attribute 
             value) consisting of the ratio of two substances. That 'unit' would have 
             pointers to each substance, and the attribute value would include the 
             numerical ratio.    (1ZHE)
 Joe Collins1: I think that the definitions of the units and definitions 
             within MathML must follow from their definition by a metrological 
             standards body.    (1ZHF)
 PatHayes: @Joe Collins1: metrological?    (1ZHG)
 RaviSharma: Pat - you have a point but MEMS - nano mechanical delivery 
             of medicines is a real case for understanding both together?    (1ZHH)
 James Davenport (OpenMath): @PatHayes, JC: what I said was that the 
             MATHEMATICS should be in MathML, e.g. NIST's x:=a+b*(y+d)/c    (1ZHI)
 Joe Collins1: Metrology, the science of measurement.    (1ZHJ)
 PatHayes: @Ravi: good point. I hadnt thought of that particular nexus.    (1ZHK)
 EvanWallace: Please add me to the list Peter.    (1ZHL)
 Martin S Weber (NIST): @James Davenport: I agree and MathML and/or 
             OpenMath will be supported in a near-future version 
			 (not the dreaded "1.0") for that reason    (1ZHM)
 BobDragoset: @JamesD: there is a strong possibility that UnitsML will 
             adopt MathML to represent mathematical expressions.    (1ZHN)
 DavidPrice: Can NIST organize, facilitate the work with the aim of 
             eventually standardizing in BIPM?    (1ZHO)
 PatHayes: @Stan O, speaking: There seemed also to be some consensus on 
             the need for extendability.    (1ZHP)
 DaveMcComb: Agree completely with PatHayes's last statement    (1ZHQ)
 Joe Collins1: BobDragoset, I'd like to forward my paper "OpenMath 
             Content Dictionaries for SI Quantities and Units".    (1ZHR)
 DaveMcComb: We do agree on a lot, and should start there    (1ZHS)
 EvanWallace: Good idea Frank.    (1ZHT)
 PeterYim: as discussed: (1) I will be creating a new mailing list to 
             cover this "Towards A Quantities and Units of Measure Ontology-based 
             Standard" discussion, 
			 (2) I will automatically subscribe everyone who is 
             here today to that list (if you want to opt out, please email me 
             peter.yim@cim3.com), 
			 (3) I will announce the creation of this mailing 
             list both on [ontolog-forum] and on the session page we are using today, 
             i.e. http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_06_19    (1ZHU)
 BobDragoset: @DavidPrice: I think that's a possibility, but I'm not an 
             ontology expert.    (1ZHV)
 Mark Linehan: Pat, there may be a core set of concepts that can have 
               relatively broad concensus, and then extension sets for specific 
               disciplines    (1ZHW)
 PatHayes: Can anyone gather together all the readings people think we 
           should all have read?    (1ZHX)
 PatHayes: We can't say goodbye as we are all muted.    (1ZHY)
 DaveMcComb: bye    (1ZHZ)
 DavidPrice: BobP / BobD!    (1ZI0)
 FrankOlken: We will continue the discussion on an email list that 
             Peter Yim will construct and put a link to on the    (1ZI1)
 EvanWallace: Bye.    (1ZI2)
 DougHolmes: Adios    (1ZI3)
 FrankOlken: conference call wiki page at Ontolog Forum    (1ZI4)
 FrankOlken: Signing off    (1ZI5)
 PeterYim: also, there are people who I don't know (and don't have a email
             address for) ... therefore if you attended this session, but did 
             not pre-register by email, please drop me a note to 
             <peter.yim@cim3.com> to make sure I have your email addresses 
	     and your affiliations    (1ZI6)
 PeterYim: great session ... thanks you everyone!    (1ZI7)
 -- session ended: 2009.06.19-12.33pm PDT --    (1ZI8)

Audio Recording of this Session    (1YJ1)

For the record ...    (1YJA)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (1YJB)