UoM_Ontology_Standard workshop (Face-to-Face) - Fri 2009-10-30    (210C)

Topic: Moving the UoM_Ontology_Standard Forward    (22FH)

Workshop Co-chair: Mr. EdwardBarkmeyer (NIST), Dr. FrankOlken (NSF) & Mr. HowardMason (BAE, ISO)    (21J2)

This is a face-to-face workshop for the UoM_Ontology_Standard working group. The session will be focused on getting the work, up to this point, into a draft standard. Other members of the community interested in tracking the progress of this work are welcome to join as observers. Remote participation is supported as well.    (21J1)

      National Science Foundation,
      Room 1235 (Director's Conference Room),
      4201 Wilson Blvd.,
      Arlington, VA 

      Our NSF Host: Dr. FrankOlken    (227K)

Archives    (22I9)

Session Details:    (22FQ)

Agenda    (22GX)

Opening & Progress-to-Date ... (i) [ audio ] (1:06:07 ; 7.6MB)    (22K7)

Accomplishments-to-date:    (22K8)

Consensus on Scope: ... (ii) [ audio ] (2:07:23 ; 15.0MB)    (22K9)

Moving Ahead to an SDO: ... (iii) [ audio ] (2:15:15 ; 15.0MB)    (22KA)

Content Issues:    (22KB)

Workplan & Next Steps:    (22KC)

Proceedings    (22HO)

Please refer to the archives above    (22HP)

IM Chat Transcript captured during the session: (lightly edited for clarity)    (22HQ)

 PeterYim: Welcome to the: UoM_Ontology_Standard workshop (Face-to-Face)        
 - Fri 2009-10-30 (210C) Topic: Moving the UoM_Ontology_Standard Forward    (232Q)
 Workshop Co-chair: Mr. EdwardBarkmeyer (NIST), Dr. FrankOlken (NSF) & Mr. HowardMason (BAE, ISO)    (232R)
 JoelBender: Hello anon!    (232S)
 anonymous1 morphed into RogerBurkhart    (232T)
 anonymous morphed into Silvia Gaio    (232U)
 anonymous morphed into HansPeter_de_Koning    (232V)
 anonymous morphed into Bo Vargas (Raytheon)    (232W)
 PeterYim: 8:50am EDT - session started ...    (232X)
 PeterYim: participants introduced themselves    (232Y)
 PeterYim: FrankOlken declared the session open    (232Z)
 PeterYim: 8:57am - HowardMason - presenting our "Goals"    (2330)
 FrankOlken: FrankOlken has jointed the chat room.    (2331)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason is presenting a brief talk on our goals for the        
 project.    (2332)
 FrankOlken: Howard mentioned the case of ton - which has multiple        
 definitions in differents systems of units. Worse, ton has several        
 different possible dimensionalities: ton as unit of mass, ton as unit of        
 power (for refrigeration), and ton as unit of energy (as in megatons of        
 yield for nuclear weapons.    (2333)
 FrankOlken: We are now discussing the base documents.    (2334)
 FrankOlken: VIM is available from BIPM at http://www.bipm.org. It is a        
 vocabulary for understanding units of measurements. 9:09 AM    (2335)
 FrankOlken: ISO 80000 is a now a successor to ISO 31 (SI units). 9:10 am    (2336)
 FrankOlken: UN/ECE Recommendation 20 is from UN/CEFACT. This is a        
 recommendation for use in cross border trade. 9:11 am    (2337)
 FrankOlken: QUDT was produced by Top Quadrant, for NASA Ames. 9:12        
 ChipMasters is now discussing this.    (2338)
 FrankOlken: SWEET is a large ontology created by NASA JPL. Part is        
 measurement units, in OWL DL based on .... by Unidata. It is in OWL DL.        
 09:13:00 AM    (2339)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: ISO/IEC 80000 "Quantities and units" will replace        
 both ISO 31 and IEC 60027. Currently 8 parts are released as        
 International Standard    (233A)
 ChipMasters: The QUDT draft specification and links to the ontology        
 files can be found here http://www.qudt.org    (233B)
 FrankOlken: UCUM is being adopted by HL7 and Open Geospatial Information        
 consortium. Developed by Gunther Schadow (not present).    (233C)
 FrankOlken: There is some argument about UCUM - it only considers units        
 not quantities. 9:14 am    (233D)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: One of the sources for QUDT was the March 2009        
 version of the QUDV (Quantities, Units, Dimensions and Values) model for        
 SysML RTF 1.2, provided by European Space Agency (ESA) to TopQuadrant    (233E)
 anonymous morphed into NicolaGuarino    (233F)
 FrankOlken: UnitsML originally from NIST, now an OASIS project. This is        
 intended to markup units for xml / html documents. It is an XML schema,        
 not an ontology.    (233G)
 FrankOlken: UnitsML tries to sort out units, beyond ISO, UCUM.    (233H)
 FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart and HansPeter_de_Koning developed QUDV. They        
 are on the line. New version is coming soon. Covers units and        
 dimensions. 9:17 am    (233I)
 FrankOlken: QUDV now has a version as an OWL ontology. Documented on the        
 OMG wiki site.    (233J)
 ChipMasters: Hans, thanks for clarifying the source SysML source for        
 QUDT.    (233K)
 NicolaGuarino: Is the shared screen working?    (233L)
 FrankOlken: 9:19am - Nicola, no we do not have the shared screen        
 working. You need to download slides directly from the web page,    (233M)
 FrankOlken: Correct spelling is HansPeter_de_Koning.    (233N)
 anonymous morphed into BrandNiemann    (233O)
 FrankOlken: Welcome BrandNiemann, we are now discussing the base        
 documents.    (233P)
 PeterYim: Agenda for the meeting is at:        
 http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard/Workshop_2        
 009_10_30#nid22GX    (233Q)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: The initial OWL version of SysML QUDV is available        
 at http://www.omgwiki.org/OMGSysML/doku.php?id=sysml-qudv:qudv_owl    (233R)
 JoelBender: http://clarkparsia.com/files/pdf/units-owled2008-eu.pdf    (233S)
 FrankOlken: See also Quantities in OWL at http://bit.ly/2wodVR by Bijan        
 Parsia and Michael Smith, presented at OWLED 2008.    (233T)
 PeterYim: On "other?" document base ... check out MikeDean's input        
 (http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/2009-10/msg00108.html#ni        
 d04) and possibly something VinayChaudri of SRI may be sending us    (233U)
 FrankOlken: 9:27 am - For QUDT see the presentation at        
 http://bit.ly/47v3gF    (233V)
 PeterYim: now that we realize that QUDV has an OWL ontology available,        
 and Hans-Peter de Koning has agreed to support us on this effort, our        
 OWL champions will now comprise of: RobRaskin, ChipMasters &        
 HansPeter_de_Koning    (233W)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes - CLIF suitable for normative representation,        
 rather than implementation.    (233X)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer notes that we will likely use OWL (OWL Full? OWL        
 DL?) also.    (233Y)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer notes the possible use of UML diagrams to help        
 understand the UoM ontology. 9:32 am    (233Z)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer notes UML diagrams will not be normative.    (2340)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer - I am sure we will use OWL 2.0.    (2341)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: we should publish as much as possible in OWL 2.0        
 DL.    (2342)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: rationale for use of OWL is to get it out to the        
 world.    (2343)
 FrankOlken: Also use OWL 2.0 Full when necessary.    (2344)
 SteveRay: Bottom line, the normative version will be in CLIF, with        
 informative versions available in OWL and UML, right?    (2345)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: The point of the CLIF version is as a reference        
 for implementors.    (2346)
 PatHayes: @Steve: Yes, I think that is basically right.    (2347)
 FrankOlken: Will the anonymous person please change yourself so as to        
 identify yourself. Click on settings button to do this. .....9:40 am    (2348)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: OWL 2 is definitely better than OWL 1, i.e., more        
 expressive.    (2349)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: We need to make it clear the users of ontology are        
 required to implement in CLIF.    (234A)
 anonymous morphed into Mark Rivas    (234B)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: CLIF will be normative reference, will also        
 publish informative version in OWL 2 DL.    (234C)
 PatHayes: Frank: NOT required...    (234D)
 FrankOlken: Pat, do you mean that OWL 2 DL is not a required        
 publication?    (234E)
 FrankOlken: Hans-Peter, are there tools for publication into CLIF, e.g.,        
 syntax checkers?    (234F)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: yes, there are parsers.    (234G)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: There is a CLIF mail exploder to standards/tool        
 developers.    (234H)
 FrankOlken: JoelBender: people will gravitate to the document in the        
 language they know.    (234I)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: In SC4 that would be text files or xml.    (234J)
 FrankOlken: SteveRay: This will help adoption (multi-lingual versions).    (234K)
 SteveRay: The advantage is that people can stay in their comfort zones        
 regarding development environments.    (234L)
 FrankOlken: RogerBurkhardt: QUDT also uses Object Constraint Language.    (234M)
 PeterYim: 9:50am EDT - review / discussion on work-in-progress (draft)    (234N)
 RogerBurkhart: The QUDV model uses the OMG Object Constraint Language        
 (OCL) in combination with UML class diagrams to express consistency and        
 derivation rules such as dimensional analysis. The greater        
 expressibility of Common Logic could be important to express such        
 internal constraints.    (234O)
 JoelBender: As a follow up to my comment, I forgot to complete the        
 thought. When a document is presented in more than one language it        
 multiplies the amount of work that is needed to keep everything        
 consistent, and there is a danger that some constraint cannot be        
 represented in one or more of the languages. This is pretty obvious when        
 stated, but isn't always followed through very well depending on how        
 well the committee participants cooperate. Just a note of my personal        
 anxiety as the process continues.    (234P)
 FrankOlken: We are getting ready to resume the discussion here shortly        
 -10:21:00    (234Q)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: @Joel: I fully agree. Ideally we should have an        
 automated way of generating alternative informative specifications,        
 avoiding dependence on human transformations.    (234R)
 PatHayes: @Joel: I agree this is an issue we should be aware of. Just        
 baldly publishing several 'versions' would not do the job.    (234S)
 PeterYim: 10:25am EDT now going into "Scope issues"    (234T)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer is speaking on the Scope of the Units of Measure        
 Ontology. see his slides linked from the meeeting agenda.    (234U)
 FrankOlken: First issue units of measure only, or also quantities. UCUM        
 has not quantities. NIST believes we need quantities.    (234V)
 NicolasRouquette: In the OMG, there is a specification called Query,        
 Views & Transformations, QVT, which provides support for specifying        
 mappings of an ontology to/from different representations in, e.g., UML,        
 OWL, RDF, etc... This approach is what the Ontology Definition Metamodel        
 (ODM) uses to specify the mappings amongst UML, OWL, RDFS and Topic        
 Maps.    (234W)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes, PeterYim, FrankOlken agree that we need        
 quantities.    (234X)
 FrankOlken: GuntherSchadow wanted only units - but he is not on the        
 call.    (234Y)
 FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino concurs with units + quantities, also wants        
 reference frames for coordinates, etc.    (234Z)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: by the model of quantities you mean to include        
 dimensionality. EdBarkmeyer the VIM talks about quantities,        
 measurements, units. See David Leal's    (2350)
 FrankOlken: See DavidLeal's UML diagrams on his web page.    (2351)
 anonymous morphed into JamieClark    (2352)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer - SI is about scalar quantities. Do we restrict        
 scope to scalar quantities.    (2353)
 FrankOlken: We need to talk about vector quantities to differentiate        
 between work and torque.    (2354)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: we have a model of quantities which        
 allows tensor measurements.    (2355)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: start with scalars and do tensors        
 later.    (2356)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: Differentiating between torque and work is        
 non-trivial.    (2357)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: We need to cover scalars, we will need to        
 extend to vectors and tensors eventually. We should start with scalars,        
 but not preclude vectors and tensors.    (2358)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: simply create base types for vectors but do        
 not explicate them further.    (2359)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: Terminology: tensor of rank 0 is scalar; rank 1 is        
 vector; rank 2 is matrix; rank > 2 is higher order tensor    (235A)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: We should be careful about saying that the        
 ontology defines things.    (235B)
 JoelBender: What is the chance that some user of this work will pick the        
 wrong label, or build a derived work, that uses the wrong class? What is        
 the consequence of picking the wrong one?    (235C)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We are drifting in substantive issues, not just        
 scope matters. I want to return to what the scope of the ontology.    (235D)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We clearly need to address scalars, possibly        
 vectors, ... tensors.    (235E)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: particular quantity is a property of a specific        
 physical object.    (235F)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: ref to PatHayes, two stick both 30 cm long ==>        
 these are two different particular quantities.    (235G)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: amount of length of the two sticks is the same        
 if both sticks are 30 cm. Do we need notion of particular quantities.    (235H)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: we do not need particular quantities.    (235I)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: we only need abstract quantities, not        
 particular quantities.    (235J)
 FrankOlken: JoeCollins: we need both notions.    (235K)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: quantity kind is sometimes referred as        
 dimension.    (235L)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: If these particular quantities are understood        
 strictly, e.g., "mass-of". Two different protons cannot have the same        
 mass. Are we talking    (235M)
 FrankOlken: ChipMasters's: comment on bullet 2. The degree to which we        
 need to capture the distinction between scalar, vector, tensor is        
 dependent on how detailed we want    (235N)
 FrankOlken: to model physical laws.    (235O)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: A rough consensus on abstract quantities, but we        
 will need some notion of particular quantities.    (235P)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: The issue we cannot get rid of is that of        
 particular measurements (with errors uncertainties).    (235Q)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: purely philosophical issue of what we want to        
 ontologize. Particular quantities are useless in the ontology.    (235R)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Physicists think in terms of particular        
 quantities.    (235S)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: we have will have URI for quantities,        
 quantity kinds (dimensionality).    (235T)
 FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: PatHayes seems to want to get rid of        
 particular quantities.    (235U)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: To be precise the definitionURI for a kind of        
 quantity or a unit will refer to the ISO/IEC 80000 normative definition    (235V)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: one can speak about length of meeting without        
 reference to a particular measurement.    (235W)
 PatHayes: Nicola is correct    (235X)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: we have identified an issue, the extent we        
 connect to external standards for quantities.    (235Y)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We certainly need abstract quantities, unclear        
 about particular quantities.    (235Z)
 FrankOlken: Pavithra: quantity is not an object, it is an attribute. It        
 has types.    (2360)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: as designed measurement, as manufactured        
 measurement.    (2361)
 NicolasRouquette: Agree with Pavithra; I think that NicolaGuarino's        
 question could be stated as follows:    (2362)
 PatHayes: I agree with Pavritha also.    (2363)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: kind of quantities = dimensions. The nature of        
 the thing being measured.    (2364)
 PatHayes: Some kinds of Q may be distinguished on other criteria than        
 dimension.    (2365)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: quantity kinds can be subtyped: length can be        
 height, depth, width, ....    (2366)
 FrankOlken: I prefer dimensionality to quantity kind.    (2367)
 FrankOlken: ChipMasters: we need both ..., dimensionality presumes a        
 system of units ....    (2368)
 NicolasRouquette: 1) Temperature of a Person: this is a general property        
 in the sense that a Person is a general concept. 2) Temperature of        
 NicolaGuarino is a specialization of the property: Temperature of a        
 Person. 3) Temperature of NicolasRouquette is a distinct specialization        
 of the property: Temperature of a Person. 4) We can then further        
 specialize the property to narrow the context in which we want to talk        
 about such quantities as properties of things in some context. 5) A        
 measurement model (In the sense of VIM) can impose additional        
 constraints on the context in which we can say that a quantity property        
 is measurable and then talk about a measurement as another kind of        
 property about a property quantity which is a property of something.    (2369)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: dimensionality presuppses choice of        
 base unit ....    (236A)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: count is another quantity kind.    (236B)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: we need to differntiate between quantity kind        
 and quantity role (length vs. height, width, ...)    (236C)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: According to VIM kind of quantity is NOT the same        
 as dimension - Dimension of a (kind of) quantity is the product of        
 powers of base quantities that you have selected for your system of        
 quantities    (236D)
 FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: Two different quantities might have same        
 dimension.    (236E)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: quantity kinds and dimension kinds    (236F)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: dimension = quantity kind role    (236G)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: The VIM terms are "kind of quantity" and "quantity        
 dimension"    (236H)
 PatHayes: @Nicolas: "specialization of a quantity" isn't a very useful        
 notion, as it has no way to be cashed out in any theories of quantity        
 relations. The temperature of Nicola (at a time, as determined by an act        
 of measurement) is not a specialization of temperature, it is a *value*        
 of temperature. It is not a property at all, but an actual temperature.        
 The property *temperature of person* is formally a set of pairs <x        
 y>where x is a person and y is a temperature. We have to allow        
 temperatures in this ('abstract') sense to *exist*, and when we do, they        
 suffice to say all that we want to say.    (236I)
 NicolasRouquette: @PatHayes: "Temperature of Nicola" is a Tensor; this        
 property is not tied to a particular context. We can specialize this        
 tensor, e.g., to refer to the "Temperature of Nicola on Oct. 30, 2009"        
 which isn't a measurement either.    (236J)
 anonymous morphed into NSF-venue    (236K)
 FrankOlken: Dimension seems overloaded. Dimension in physics seems to        
 mean quantity kind. Dimension in engineering is a role (e.g., height,        
 width).    (236L)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: we should defer further discussion to        
 substantive phase of the project.    (236M)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: We need to tie our concepts to standards,        
 standard termionologies, e.g., VIM.    (236N)
 PatHayes: @Nicolas: OK, you beat me. I have no idea what you are talking        
 about. HOwever, *temperature of nicola* is certainly not a tensor in        
 CLIF, OWL or any ontology formalism I know of.    (236O)
 ChipMasters:        
 http://books.google.com/books?id=pIlCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false    (236P)
 FrankOlken: ChipMasters: dimensionality = systems dimension (dependent        
 on systems of measure)    (236Q)
 NicolasRouquette: I said that, ideally, the UOM should really be an        
 ontology of VIM and nothing else. VIM has the benefit of having been        
 thoroughly vetted and reviewed in the scientific community for,        
 literally, hundreds of years.    (236R)
 JoeCollins: "quantity dimension" is well defined, "dimension" is not    (236S)
 FrankOlken: PeterYim: We should stick to the VIM as closely as possible.    (236T)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Chapter I conflates two notions of quantity        
 (Ch. I of VIM). VIM was written by physicists not engineer.    (236U)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We will to model systems of quantities.    (236V)
 NicolasRouquette: Ed: could you specifically point to where VIM is        
 ambiguous or conflicting about the notion of quantity?    (236W)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Will we model any other systems than SI?    (236X)
 NicolasRouquette: QUDV in SysML 1.2 allows you to define your own system        
 of units, whether it is a subset of SI, a superset, overlaps with SI or        
 is completely different.    (236Y)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We will model systems of quantities. Will we        
 model any other systems of measurement within this ontology.    (236Z)
 NicolasRouquette: Similarly, QUDV in SysML 1.2 allows you to define your        
 own system of quantities; there is no constraint that says that one has        
 to use all of ISQ.    (2370)
 NicolasRouquette: (ISQ = Int. System of Quantities, which is part of        
 ISO/IEC 80000)    (2371)
 FrankOlken: ChipMasters: we certainly want to model SI, perhaps other        
 systems if folks need them. Also possibly use other systems to        
 illustrate concepts from ontology.    (2372)
 PeterYim: Hans-Peter, you are putting music onto our phone line ...        
 please do not put your phone on hold    (2373)
 FrankOlken: Some from European Space Agency has put us on hold and is        
 paying music. Please do not do this.    (2374)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: Apologies! I had a call on my second line...    (2375)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyers: We are discussing systems of quantities (not        
 yet systems of units).    (2376)
 PeterYim: thank you, Hans-Peter    (2377)
 PatHayes: @Hans-Peter: it was very entertaining.    (2378)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: QUDV can handle multiple systems of        
 quantities.    (2379)
 FrankOlken: Some systems of quantities (SI) use current as a base        
 dimension and then charge = current * time. Other systems use charge as        
 base dimension, and current = charge / time.    (237A)
 PeterYim: @NicolaGuarino - could you document the point you just made on        
 this chat board, please    (237B)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: To what extent we cover other systems of        
 quantities than SI?    (237C)
 FrankOlken: ChipMasters: Charge = sqrt of force (via Coulomb's Law)    (237D)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyers: Do we cover derived quantities as come        
 computation over base quantities? Does anyone disagree?    (237E)
 NicolasRouquette: I think we need to review the SysML QUDV in the        
 context of this discussion. We already covered the problems of other        
 systems of units/quantities and the support for dimensional analysis,        
 coherence and derivation.    (237F)
 FrankOlken: ChipMasters: I disagree, this would requite an ontology of        
 operators.    (237G)
 FrankOlken: FrankOlken: I agree with Ed.    (237H)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: We could have an incomplete model of derivations.    (237I)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: Derivations are simple.    (237J)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: Both VIM and QUDV include derivations of        
 derived units.    (237K)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: VIM and QUDV differentiate between quantity        
 kinds and dimenisonality.    (237L)
 NicolasRouquette: @Frank: My name is spelled Rouquette, not Roquette.    (237M)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: Derived units are within scope. Details to be        
 determined.    (237N)
 FrankOlken: Pavithra: record system of units explicitly.    (237O)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: The SysML QUDV contains a full OCL algorithm that        
 specifies how to automatically derive the quantity dimension for any        
 (kind of) quantity that is defined within a system of quantities. The        
 system of quantities defines its base quantities. One individual system        
 of quantities can represent the ISQ (International System of        
 Quantities).    (237P)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We need to model systems of units explicitly.    (237Q)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Which units go into ontology. Clearly need SI        
 base units? do we add joules? what about metric prefixes? do we add all        
 of these derived units? on do we rely on a library of derived units?    (237R)
 FrankOlken: JoeCollins: cgs units are not part of SI. Include SI named        
 units, metric prefixes?    (237S)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: separate out derived units    (237T)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: I agree - put derived units in a library, not core        
 ontology.    (237U)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: To be precise I would separate the basic concepts        
 in a base ontology, then create a second ISQ/SI ontology the imports the        
 base ontology and adds the most important ISQ/SI quantities and units    (237V)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: there are libraries out there ... Do we assume        
 that libraries will become published extensions? What about UCUM? But        
 they are not ontologies ....    (237W)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: Scope will include how to do extensions.    (237X)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: rule based registry or explicit choice        
 maintenance authority?    (237Y)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: Need a model of unit derviation.    (237Z)
 FrankOlken: I agree with Ed on unit derivation.    (2380)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: we will not formalize real arithmetic in OWL,        
 likely not in Common Logic.    (2381)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We specify explicilty dimensionsal        
 analysis in QUDV - including derivation of derived units and quantities.    (2382)
 FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: We only do simple derivations, expect we will        
 need to support unit conversion.    (2383)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Are scales within scope: ratio scales (length,        
 time) Absolute scales (mass, temperature)?    (2384)
 FrankOlken: Yes, I think so.    (2385)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: What about Rockwell Hardness?    (2386)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We included absolute scales in QUDV. It        
 is essential for many engineering applications.    (2387)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: should ontology include general notion of scales        
 and situate SI within this framework?    (2388)
 FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: We will need scales.    (2389)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: We cannot avoid scales.    (238A)
 FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: What about inverse properties such as        
 resistance and conductance ...    (238B)
 PeterYim: @Nicola - can you give us the name of the book you cited        
 again, please    (238C)
 NicolaGuarino: Albert Tarantola: Elements for Physics: Quantities,        
 Qualities, and Intrinsic Theories    (238D)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: we need a general framework for scales.    (238E)
 RaviSharma: NicolaGuarino: The answer lies in physics and not in the        
 units alone, as there could be different ways of measuring conductance        
 and also resistance and it need not always add to unity as there are        
 errors in measurements and different micro processes are invloves.    (238F)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: What about nonlinear scales - logarithmic, e.g        
 sound intensity in decibels.    (238G)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: what about scales such as rockwell hardness.    (238H)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: It is just a partial order.    (238I)
 FrankOlken: Actually, it is a total ordering.    (238J)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Do we model unit conversions?    (238K)
 FrankOlken: Evan Wallace: Yes, otherwise we are wasting our time.    (238L)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We do it, it is simple.    (238M)
 FrankOlken: SteveRay: ChipMasters was concerned with the mathematical        
 operators needed.    (238N)
 RaviSharma: EvanWallace: Yes or else there will be no communication        
 between the different measurement systems.    (238O)
 FrankOlken: chipMasters: We all want unit conversions.    (238P)
 FrankOlken: ChipMasters: we need to model logarithmic functions.    (238Q)
 NicolasRouquette: Earlier, someone expressed a concern about scoping how        
 much of "scales" do we want to tackle. I think that focusing first on        
 the notions of scales for which we can provide value-added reasoning        
 support (e.g., Hans-Peter mentioned automated conversion) is a good way        
 to force ourselves to limit the scope to what we can reason about.    (238R)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason; no dissent on need for units conversion        
 modelling within the ontology.    (238S)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: do we model particular quantities and        
 measurements? in first draft?    (238T)
 RaviSharma: ChipMasters: The scale of conversion or accuracy does not        
 matter but affects accuracy of measurement whether linear, log, and        
 often with limits including singularities.    (238U)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: The physicists are excited about particular        
 measurements.    (238V)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: This threatens to take us into the realms of        
 other standards.    (238W)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: We need particular quantities for the standard to        
 be useful. Perhaps we can partially specify this.    (238X)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: Include in scope some discussion of measured        
 values ...    (238Y)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: TC 213 does tolerance and uncertainty. Do we        
 model tolerances? This has significant commercial significance.    (238Z)
 NicolaGuarino: I have to go now, bybye everybody. Nice discussion!    (2390)
 FrankOlken: Steve Ray: We need to differentiate measurement uncertainty        
 and specification tolerance (descriptive, vs. prescriptive).    (2391)
 FrankOlken: SteveRay: Can we avoid prescriptive notions of tolerance?    (2392)
 FrankOlken: SteveRay: Tolerances and measurement uncertainty are        
 separable issues.    (2393)
 FrankOlken: I favor defering issues to tolerances.    (2394)
 FrankOlken: Evan Wallace: This is an artificial distinction. this is        
 problematic for commerce.    (2395)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We should limit discuss of tolerance.    (2396)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: We will not consider tolerances in first        
 release.    (2397)
 FrankOlken: No consensus about measurement uncertainty.    (2398)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer will not include either measurement uncertainty        
 or tolerance within first version.    (2399)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: Should we divide the ontology into modules?        
 Yes? Unclear, how?    (239A)
 PatHayes: For the record, tolerance is easy, but uncertainty and        
 probability is new territory for formalization in ontology languages, so        
 we risk being too ambitious.    (239B)
 FrankOlken: OWL 2 is working on modularization. CLIF?    (239C)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: Yes, CLIF has modularization scheme, including        
 restricting scope of existential quantities.    (239D)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: We want modularization.    (239E)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: module import is transtive    (239F)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Explicit microtheories - possibly inconsistent        
 with each other?    (239G)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: Names can mean different things within        
 metatheories. This is risky within a standard.    (239H)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: You can get something similar by subscripting        
 names with contexts in common logic.    (239I)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: We do not want full CYC microtheories - e.g.,        
 multiple meanings for names within microtheories.    (239J)
 PatHayes: metatheory//microtheory    (239K)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyers: Should we include guidance for how to do        
 extensions to this standard? Yes !!!    (239L)
 PatHayes: Yes, as far as we can.    (239M)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: relationship to other standards efforts? UCUM?        
 UnitsML? Other?    (239N)
 PatHayes: HOw can a mere mortal like myself get hold of a readable copy        
 of iso 80000 ?    (239O)
 NicolasRouquette: You can find VIM and various publications related to        
 ISO/IEC 80000 here:    (239P)
 NicolasRouquette: http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/    (239Q)
 FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: Use NIST document on treatment of        
 English units as example for how to do extensions.    (239R)
 FrankOlken: JerrySmith: When we get to 80 percent, publish!    (239S)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: We need to know where the repository will        
 how, implications for intellectual property.    (239T)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: NIST document SP 811        
 http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/    (239U)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: This closes scope discussion.    (239V)
 PeterYim: 12:29pm - lunch break    (239W)
 JoelBender: Is the conference line staying open?    (239X)
 FrankOlken: We will resume at 1:15 PM, 17:15 PM UK, 18:15 Europeans time        
 - i.e., 45 minutes.    (239Y)
 PeterYim: 1:19pm - back in session    (239Z)
 PatHayes: Ed: do we have a referenceable summary of what we agreed this        
 morning?    (23A0)
 JoelBender: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html    (23A1)
 FrankOlken: We have resumed the meeting.    (23A2)
 FrankOlken: We are now discussing the standardization strategy.    (23A3)
 FrankOlken: It appears that we use OASIS as the base Standards        
 Development Organization.    (23A4)
 FrankOlken: OASIS will accommodate a variety of file formats including        
 xml, xhtml.    (23A5)
 FrankOlken: After OASIS standard would be forwarded to ISO (or possibly        
 W3C).    (23A6)
 JamieClark: Or both; issue of where to submit will be for the committee        
 once the have a final OASIS Standard product.    (23A7)
 JamieClark: Every submission has a time and strategy tax, though, so        
 that'll be easier to evaluate once underway. In any case, OASIS makes        
 those submissions.    (23A8)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Unhappy at the prospect of falling into the        
 clutches of the W3C.    (23A9)
 FrankOlken: PatHayes: I am guessing that W3C will pass.....    (23AA)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: We want to avoid going through more than one        
 standardization process.    (23AB)
 FrankOlken: JoelBender: during the standards development process the        
 draft documents will be available on the TRAC server ...    (23AC)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: We will need a copy of the standards drafts on        
 the OASIS server (even the working documents).    (23AD)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: OASIS also has site for email for standards        
 development.    (23AE)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: Many XML based projects have run aground on XML        
 tools issues.    (23AF)
 FrankOlken: Nicolas Rouqette: How will you coordinate with OMG on QUDV?        
 I would like to avoid duplication of work with SysML, the creation of        
 similar but different standards.    (23AG)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: The committee will establish coordinating        
 processes    (23AH)
 JamieClark: OASIS rules permit use of properly administered outside        
 tools for hosting functions we don't carry out internally.    (23AI)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: Andrew Watson at OMG is the right person        
 for coordination of OMG and OASIS work.    (23AJ)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: Show the SysML the charter, ask if they want to        
 be involved with the creation of the UML model for UoM ontology.    (23AK)
 JamieClark: Joel: Talk to our Mary McRae, she's the authority on        
 approval of TC use of outside resources. And, as it happens, a CMS        
 expert. Mary.mcrae [at] oasis-open.org    (23AL)
 JoelBender: Thank you.    (23AM)
 FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: I do not see problems of coordinating the OMG        
 and OASIS work.    (23AN)
 FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: I chair the SysML revision group.    (23AO)
 FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: Original SysML submitters gave very        
 permissive license.    (23AP)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: We have used ODM mappings to translate        
 to/from UML, Owl.    (23AQ)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: No dissent on use of OASIS as the vehicle for        
 this ontology standard.    (23AR)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: Let us start discussion of the charter of the        
 standards group.    (23AS)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: Proposed name: QUOMOS: Quantity and Units of        
 Measure Ontology Standard    (23AT)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: Do we include usage rules in the standard?    (23AU)
 FrankOlken: Various: no    (23AV)
 NicolasRouquette: Ed, are you saying that you don't like SysML? I'm        
 choked!    (23AW)
 JoelBender: (there is a quite a bit of discussion that is difficult to        
 hear on the conference call)    (23AX)
 FrankOlken: I think we should avoid business rules - as too politically        
 sensitive.    (23AY)
 FrankOlken: Goal is electronic open-access document.    (23AZ)
 FrankOlken: OASIS: non-asssertion regime. Membership in the TC waives        
 your rights to content of standard.    (23B0)
 FrankOlken: Intended users: development of information models    (23B1)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Also document markup developers    (23B2)
 FrankOlken: Also data exchange markup developers.    (23B3)
 FrankOlken: Evan: You skipped over a section on "dimensions". We need to        
 be clear about quantity kind.    (23B4)
 FrankOlken: Language for conducting business: English.    (23B5)
 FrankOlken: Various standards to coordinate: UnitsML, BIPM, ISO 80000,    (23B6)
 FrankOlken: EvanWallace: I do not see Recommendation 20 on here. I am        
 concerned that it might be constraining. I am glad to see it omitted        
 here.    (23B7)
 FrankOlken: Do we need a heartbeat - a regular working draft        
 publication?    (23B8)
 anonymous1 morphed into HajoRijgersberg    (23B9)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: forward standard to ISO in charter?    (23BA)
 FrankOlken: consensus: No.    (23BB)
 FrankOlken: Draft title of standard: Quantity and Unit of Measure        
 Ontology Standard (QUOMOS)    (23BC)
 FrankOlken: NIST (is a member of OASIS) and will support the standard.    (23BD)
 FrankOlken: PeterYim (is an individual member of OASIS) and will support        
 the standard development.    (23BE)
 FrankOlken: BAE will suport the standard and is a member of OASIS.    (23BF)
 FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette (JPL) will support.    (23BG)
 FrankOlken: NSF is not a member of OASIS.    (23BH)
 FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart (John Deere) is not a member.    (23BI)
 FrankOlken: Eurostep may support this.    (23BJ)
 FrankOlken: OMG is not a member of OASIS.    (23BK)
 FrankOlken: NIST, JPL, BAE?, CMU?, Eurostep, LBNL?, --- we need to get        
 approval of primary OASIS members.    (23BL)
 FrankOlken: DOD DISA is a member of OASIS, could also endorse the        
 standard.    (23BM)
 FrankOlken: Schedule for first meeting?    (23BN)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: I am estimating mid-January, 2010 for first        
 meeting. Mostly teleconference.    (23BO)
 NicolasRouquette: Bye.    (23BP)
 FrankOlken: JamieClark: First meeting is likely to be just a        
 teleconference.    (23BQ)
 PeterYim: @JamieClark - OASIS should request from ISO a copy of the        
 latest ISO/IEC 80000 standard for the purpose of this development (to        
 Mike Smith of ISO) with the understanding that this will be put into a        
 password protected shared file workspace for this working group    (23BR)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: OASIS needs to request of Mike Smith a copy of        
 ISO 80000 for purposes of the ontology std development.    (23BS)
 PeterYim: above suggested by HowardMason    (23BT)
 FrankOlken: We will resume in 5 minutes.    (23BU)
 FrankOlken: We are reconvening now.    (23BV)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: I am back on-line and in the audio conference    (23BW)
 FrankOlken: We are trying to schedule a teleconference (perhaps a part        
 of Ontolog Forum) to discuss QUOMOS project.    (23BX)
 FrankOlken: Yim: we will have teleconference to finalize QUOMOS charter        
 on Nov. 19, 2009. Thursday - see developing session details
 at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard/ConferenceCall_2009_11_19    (23BY)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: We need all contributions, and names of        
 sponsoring persons, organizations within OASIS by Nov. 16, 2009.    (23BZ)
 FrankOlken: We now need a convenor for the mid-January 2010 - First OASIS QUOMOS TC meeting.        
 HowardMason, EdBarkmeyer, FrankOlken, PeterYim are candidates. 
 [ subsequent post: 14-Jan-2010 is a Thursday, and could be a candidate date
 for that meeting.  -PeterYim ]    (23C0)
 FrankOlken: We now need a list of deliverables to go into the charter.    (23C1)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: A bunch of modules, each in CLIF, derived OWL 2        
 DL, UML pictures, explanatory English text.    (23C2)
 FrankOlken: Modules will be quantities, units, and scales. Optional        
 units on measurement uncertainty, tolerances.    (23C3)
 FrankOlken: I may be able to participate as a representative of OASIS        
 member LBNL.    (23C4)
 FrankOlken: Deliverables: we will produce xxxx initially. We may produce        
 xxx modules later.    (23C5)
 FrankOlken: We will start with SI base, and extension mechanism.    (23C6)
 FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Quantities, Units of Measure, Scales, SI base        
 units, Derived Units, ... modules    (23C7)
 FrankOlken: Maybe also a module called Dimensions.    (23C8)
 FrankOlken: A core set of modules covering quantities, units of measure,        
 scales, SI base units, Derived Units, Dimensions, and Extension        
 mechanism.    (23C9)
 HajoRijgersberg: How about measures? And how about quantity kinds? Are        
 they regarded as separate concepts or as classification of quantities?    (23CA)
 PeterYim: (about an hour ago) HajoRijgersberg sent in his input about        
 scope (and more) in a message at:        
 http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/2009-10/index.html    (23CB)
 FrankOlken: Eachmodule shall include: CLIF, OWL @ DL,    (23CC)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: I think my line is muted from your side?    (23CD)
 HajoRijgersberg: I'm sorry, people, I should have sent it earlier.        
 Something went wrong with starting time interpretation here...    (23CE)
 JoelBender: (it is very difficult to hear, there is still an office        
 conversation obliterating the conference)    (23CF)
 FrankOlken: Hans Peter, We seem to be getting background noise from your        
 phone.    (23CG)
 HansPeter_de_Koning: I will try to reconnect...    (23CH)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: The TC will plan to meet every 2 weeks.    (23CI)
 FrankOlken: The standard will be known as Quantities and Units of        
 Measure Ontology Standard (QUOMOS). There was consensus on this.    (23CJ)
 FrankOlken: Who is editing the charter? HowardMason can finish the week        
 of Nov. 16. EdBarkmeyer can mark up the wiki in the meantime.    (23CK)
 HajoRijgersberg: Why restrict the title of the standard to quantities        
 and units? There is so much more. Doesn't the term "unit" cover what can        
 be called "the domain of units"?    (23CL)
 PatHayes: Hajo, I think the title isnt meant to be proscriptive, only a        
 general indication.    (23CM)
 FrankOlken: Dimensions are within scope, just not in the title.    (23CN)
 FrankOlken: Any other items of business?    (23CO)
 PatHayes: However, QUODMOS is kind of cute....    (23CP)
 FrankOlken: HowardMason: We are adjourned.    (23CQ)
 PeterYim: EdBarkmeyer suggest we poll everyone on their OASIS membership        
 status. Peter to put request on the uom mailing list ... we don't want        
 to lose anyone!    (23CR)
 PeterYim: Great session ... thank you everyone ... audio recording and        
 chat transcript will be posted tomorrow.    (23CS)
 PeterYim: Appreciations to FrankOlken and NSF for hosting us today!    (23CT)
 -- session ended: 2009.10.30 - 15:30 EDT --    (23CU)

Audio Recording of the Workshop Sessions:    (22HU)

Resources:    (22G6)

For the records ...    (22I3)

How To Join Remotely (while the session is in progress)    (22I4)

Attendees:    (23CX)

On-site Participants:    (23CY)

Remote Participants:    (23DB)