From OntologPSMW

Jump to: navigation, search
[ ]

Contents

Ontolog Panel Discussion: Advancing the UoM_Ontology_Standard work to OASIS - Thu 19-Nov-2009     (1)

Archives     (1C)

  • Shared-screen support (VNC session), if applicable, will be started 5 minutes before the call at: http://vnc2.cim3.net:5800/     (1D5)
    • view-only password: "ontolog"     (1D5A)
    • if you plan to be logging into this shared-screen option (which the speaker may be navigating), and you are not familiar with the process, please try to call in 5 minutes before the start of the session so that we can work out the connection logistics. Help on this will generally not be available once the presentation starts.     (1D5B)
    • people behind corporate firewalls may have difficulty accessing this. If that is the case, please download the slides above and running them locally. The speaker(s) will prompt you to advance the slides during the talk.     (1D5C)
  • Discussions and Q & A:     (1D6)
    • (Unless the conference host has already muted everyone) Please mute your phone, by pressing "*2" on your phone keypad, when a presentation is in progress. To un-mute, press "*3"     (1D6A)
    • You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:     (1D6B)
      • instructions: once you got access to the page, click on the "settings" button, and identify yourself (by modifying the Name field). You can indicate that you want to ask a question verbally by clicking on the "hand" button, and wait for the moderator to call on you; or, type and send your question into the chat window at the bottom of the screen.     (1D6C1)
    • (when everyone is muted) If you want to speak or have questions or remarks to make, please "raise your hand (virtually)" by click on the "hand button" (lower right) on the chat session page. You may speak when acknowledged by the speaker or the session moderator (again, press "*3" on your phone to unmute). Test your voice and introduce yourself first before proceeding with your remarks, please. (Please remember to click on the "hand button" again (to lower your hand) and press "*2" on your phone to mute yourself after you are done speaking.)     (1D6D)
    • thanks to the soaphub.org folks, one can now use a jabber/xmpp client (e.g. gtalk) to join this chatroom. Just add the room as a buddy - (in our case here) ontolog_20091119@soaphub.org ... Handy for mobile devices!     (1D6E)
  • For those who cannot join us, or who have further questions or remarks on the topic, please post them to the [ uom-ontology-std ] listserv so that everyone in the community can benefit from the discourse.     (1D7)
  • Please note that this session will be recorded, and the audio archive, as well as all proceeedings are expected to be made available as open content to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.     (1D11)

Resources     (1E)

Attendees     (1G)

Agenda & Proceedings     (1H)

1. Opening by session Chair -- Frank Olken     (1H1)

2. Review and adoption of our draft OASIS TC Charter -- Howard Mason     (1H2)

3. Next steps towards formation of the OASIS QUOMOS Technical Committee -- Howard Mason     (1H3)

5. Identifying who is going to be involved, Q & A and Open Discussion (All) -- please refer to process above     (1H5)

6. Summary and conclusion -- Frank Olken     (1H6)

Proceedings     (1I)

Please refer to the archives above     (1I1)

===IM Chat Transcript captured during the session=== ... (lightly edited for clarity)     (1I2)

Peter P. Yim: Welcome to the Ontolog Panel Discussion:     (1I3)

Advancing the UoM_Ontology_Standard work to OASIS - Thu 19-Nov-2009     (1I4)

and Next Steps towards the OASIS QUOMOS TC Formation     (1I8)

o Dr. Rob Raskin (NASA/JPL) [in absentia], Dr. James Masters (TopQuadrant)     (1I11)

Please refer to details on the session page     (1I14)

anonymous morphed into David Leal     (1I16)

anonymous morphed into Chip Masters     (1I17)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Hi, my telephone connection is very bad. I try to understand what you are saying.     (1I18)

Frank Olken: This is Frank Olken. I am on the line. I am having a hard time hearing folks - but I can     (1I19)

hear Peter Yim okay.     (1I20)

Frank Olken: I spoke yesterday at the CENDI/NFAIS/FLICC workshop on Semantic Web: Fact or Myth? in     (1I21)

Washington, DC.     (1I22)

Frank Olken: the workshop web page is: http://cendievents.infointl.com/cfn1109/ ... Eventually, there will copies of the speakers' slides and perhaps video at the CENDI web     (1I23)

Ed Barkmeyer: Schedule: the first day after 15 December is 2 January     (1I25)

Peter P. Yim: if Jan-14 is too tight, Jan-21 or Jan-28 are both open too (if we still want to do it on     (1I26)

an Ontolog Thursday event slot)     (1I27)

Matthew West: Who can be an "eligible person" to register as a participant?     (1I28)

Howard Mason: See the Charter page for a link to the OASIS procedures that define the terms     (1I29)

explicitly     (1I30)

Frank Olken: I have received authorization from Mary Ann Piette (LBNL) to act on behalf of Lawrence     (1I31)

Berkeley National Laboratory     (1I32)

Frank Olken: w.r.t the QUOMOS effort and TC charter.     (1I33)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Do I understand correctly we can now make comments on the charter?     (1I34)

Frank Olken: You will recall that I (Frank Olken) am employed by LBNL - but am detailed here to NSF.     (1I35)

Frank Olken: Hajo, Yes. Raise your hand on the chat room, or send message to the chat room.     (1I36)

Ed Barkmeyer: I am pleased with the revised draft charter. All of our concerns are addressed. Thanks.     (1I37)

Ed Barkmeyer: NIST has formally approved our participation, that is, both the NIST OASIS principal     (1I38)

and my management.     (1I39)

Frank Olken: Thus the list on the charter is tentative list, until we get email confirming     (1I40)

participation (proper confirmation).     (1I41)

anonymous morphed into Pavithra Kenjige     (1I42)

Ed Barkmeyer: You can actually extend the supporting membership during the participation call period     (1I43)

HansPeter_de_Koning: ESA is not an OASIS member and unlikely to become one any time soon. I can     (1I44)

provide inputs as an individual but cannot act on behalf of an OASIS member organisation.     (1I45)

Frank Olken: Perhaps we can get NASA to participate - they are members.     (1I46)

Chip Masters: I am discussing membership options with our NASA sponsor for QUDT. Do you need a firm     (1I47)

commitment for a specific individual (e.g me) or is a commitment from a member organization to     (1I48)

participate sufficient?     (1I49)

Frank Olken: Ed Barkmeyer suggests: Paragraph 2d should be "the TC will seek to coordinate     (1I50)

development with ...."     (1I51)

Frank Olken: JamieClark: in paragraph 2a, "we will talk ... and attempt to coordinate"     (1I52)

Peter P. Yim: @Howard and Jamie: we have our five already - Howard Mason (BAE), Ed Barkmeyer (NIST),     (1I53)

Frank Olken (LBNL), Jerry Smith (DoD) and Peter P. Yim (CIM3; associate member)     (1I54)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Thank you, Frank. Yes, I think the draft is fine. I see many concepts mentioned     (1I55)

that I think are important in the domain of units of measure. However, to get to the point directly,     (1I56)

I argue measurement scales should be more prominent in the scope; converting temperatures (absolute     (1I57)

or differenc) has a strong relation with scale refered to or unit.     (1I58)

Ed Barkmeyer: I have to leave now for the "dragoon" function. I am saddling up and grabbing my     (1I59)

musket...     (1I60)

Frank Olken: JamieClark: "contributions" should read something else "contributions means that the TC     (1I61)

may modify these items"     (1I62)

Pat Hayes: hajo: your point will emerge in the work no matter what the charter says, so relax     (1I63)

JamieClark: thanks - Frank captured my second point; my first was to use something aspirational --     (1I64)

The TC will liaise with and consider coordination of its specification(s) with XYZ ... rather than     (1I65)

the presceptive "development WILL be coordinated with ...". Thanks, apologizes that I must depart     (1I66)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Yes, I'm relaxed, thank you. Just a little bit unused to a teleworkshop...     (1I68)

Hajo Rijgersberg: OK, I just get to another point. In 1b it says that existing formal models for     (1I69)

quantities and units are not quite comparable. I'm not sure that is true. More evidence should be     (1I70)

provided.     (1I71)

Frank Olken: Howard will edit the draft charter on the wiki. Peter will submit to OASIS.     (1I72)

Peter P. Yim: I'll be happy to do that     (1I73)

Frank Olken: David Leal will now speak on the UML model of QUOMOS based on the VIM from his slides.     (1I74)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Maybe it's more important that a new standard is shared widely. And that we try to     (1I75)

accomplish that by the Ontolog discussion group. The different existing approaches may, in the     (1I76)

future, be comparable, so that they can be used next to each other.     (1I77)

Frank Olken: Summer discussion of quantity and kind of quantity overlap somewhat.     (1I78)

Peter P. Yim: @DavidLeal - ref. the mangled up slides, if you can supply a set in pdf later, I will swap     (1I79)

that in (for the archives)     (1I80)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Reminds me of a question I have (maybe a stupid one): are we going to continue the     (1I81)

summer discussions?     (1I82)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Systems of units. They should be in the scope too.     (1I83)

Joe Collins: Quantity Kind, such as when two Derived Quantities with the same Quantity Dimension have     (1I84)

different Quantity Kind, is rather ill defined in VIM. Making the definition clear is an endless,     (1I85)

case by case task.     (1I86)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Being able to set the value of a quantity, may be a requirement (i.e., part of the     (1I87)

scope) too. It will have an effect on how quantities are modeled: as independent concepts or     (1I88)

properties (referring to out summer discussions too).     (1I89)

Frank Olken: We are now on slide 6 (aka 66) of David Leal's slides.     (1I90)

Hajo Rijgersberg: No, it does not necessarily have to be difficult: different quantity kinds (such as     (1I91)

breadth and width) can have the same dimension (length).     (1I92)

Frank Olken: We are now on slide 7 (aka 77).     (1I93)

Pat Hayes: I am finding this completely confusing (confused?)     (1I94)

Joe Collins: I believe that "mutually comparable" quantities, i.e., having the same Quantity Kind,     (1I96)

means that they are referred to in some "Law of Physics", a meaningful equality or inequality within     (1I97)

a scientific theory.     (1I98)

Arturo Sanchez: I wonder how you will be able to express concepts such as "equivalence relations" in     (1I99)

Joe Collins: To H.R.: I didn't mean difficult, just endless.     (1I101)

Hajo Rijgersberg: OK, but why exactly endless?     (1I102)

Pat Hayes: i don't knowe what the difference is and i have no idea how to separate them. Why are we     (1I103)

doing this? What is a particular quantity     (1I104)

Hajo Rijgersberg: We're back in the summer discussions.     (1I105)

Joe Collins: For example, there's no conceptual limit on the number of dimensionless quantities, many     (1I106)

of which may be of the same kind. The Kind equivalence classes are resultant of scientific theories.     (1I107)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Yes, there's no conceptual limit on the number of dim'less quantities. We have to     (1I108)

model them and assign their dimension "dimension one".     (1I109)

Hajo Rijgersberg: I think it is very important to continue our summer discussions.     (1I110)

Hajo Rijgersberg: My statement at the time was and still is that particular quantities, such as the     (1I111)

length of my table, is an instance (or member) of length.     (1I112)

Hajo Rijgersberg: And length is a quantity class.     (1I113)

Mark Linehan: VIM 1.1 for "quantity" has "Note 1: The generic concept 'quantity' can be divided into     (1I114)

several levels of specific concepts, as shown in the following table. The left hand side of the     (1I115)

table shows specific concepts under 'quantity'. These are generic concepts for the individual     (1I116)

quantities in the right hand column."     (1I117)

Mark Linehan: (and a table follows, where the first line has length, radius, and radius of a circle     (1I118)

on one row)     (1I119)

Hajo Rijgersberg: So a generic level of quantities is "length", "mass", etc. and a specific length     (1I120)

has representatives like "length of my table"?     (1I121)

Matthew West: Treating classes as instances, and then adding classification and specialisation at the     (1I122)

instance level is something ISO 15926 did around properties     (1I123)

Mark Linehan: yes -- but to be parallel to the note 1 that I cited, generic would be "length", an     (1I124)

example mid-level quantity would be "width" (versus perhaps "depth") and a specific quantity would     (1I125)

be "width of my table"     (1I126)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Yes, Mark, that's what I mean. In my eyes this is a hierarchy of quantities.     (1I127)

Hajo Rijgersberg: But it can of course also be modeled as Matthew says.     (1I129)

Hajo Rijgersberg: But I expect that people are more familiar with hierarchies?     (1I130)

HansPeter_de_Koning: To H.R: I agree with the need explicit "dimension one". That's how we do it in     (1I131)

Mark Linehan: I suppose, but Matt's chart 4 defines 3 specific levels. I think Pat's point is that     (1I133)

may be the wrong way to go.     (1I134)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Yes, there may be more levels in some cases. There's no official limit to the     (1I135)

number of levels.     (1I136)

Pat Hayes: like sublasses, right?     (1I137)

Hajo Rijgersberg: We have to model this for the most important quantities, starting with length,     (1I139)

mass, time, etc.     (1I140)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Yes, like subclasses, I would say.     (1I141)

Mark Linehan: in VIM, those are "kind of quantity" and are standards     (1I142)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Yes, but we should not define "kind of quantity" as a class. (I stated that also in     (1I143)

our summer discussions.)     (1I144)

Frank Olken: We are looking at     (1I145)

David Leal: For length as a class of particular quantity it is reasonable to have waist size as a     (1I148)

subclass, because some particular lengths are waist sizes. For length as a class of magnitude of     (1I149)

quantity it is not reasonable, because there is nothing special about 37 inches which makes it a     (1I150)

waist size.     (1I151)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Indeed, measures/magnitudes have no hierarchy.     (1I152)

Frank Olken: HansPeter - if understand this, simple units and base units are differentiated in order     (1I153)

to deal with the fact that     (1I154)

Hajo Rijgersberg: As to waste size: we can have a class "Quantity", with subclass "Length", with     (1I155)

subclass "Size" on its turn, with subclass "Waste size" on its turn. This is a nice example.     (1I156)

Frank Olken: base unit for SI mass dimension is the kilogram?     (1I157)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Base units are a property of a system of units.     (1I158)

Hajo Rijgersberg: They are simple units, but derived units may also be simple units, such as pascal     (1I159)

and newton.     (1I160)

Hajo Rijgersberg: In the NIST standardadization document of Taylor, simple units are called "units     (1I161)

that have a special name". Are we talking about the same thing here?     (1I162)

Frank Olken: Howard Mason has updated the TC charter, send comments to him via email.     (1I163)

Howard Mason: *** ACTION item - the draft of the Charter has been completed, apart from the explicit     (1I164)

statement from NIST. Please review and send any comments direct to me for inclusion. Signing off for     (1I165)

Hajo Rijgersberg: OK, I see you are defining simple units as base units. Why?     (1I167)

Peter P. Yim: for our editors of the OWL ontology: if you are planning to do some comparison (and     (1I168)

possibly mapping) between the various owl ontologies, may I suggest you upload them to the Open     (1I169)

Ontology Repository instance (OOR-sandbox at http://oor-01.cim3.net ... also ref.     (1I170)

http://OpenOntologyRepository.org which another community working in the Ontolog-CWE)     (1I171)

Frank Olken: Pat Hayes is now speaking.     (1I172)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Maybe a simple unit is a unit that is not defined in terms of other units but in     (1I173)

terms of standard quantities? Why distinguish these kinds of units? They can just have a different     (1I174)

definition.     (1I175)

HansPeter_de_Koning: To Hajo Rijgersberg: We define a SimpleUnit as a class. It is instantiated independent from any [[SystemOfUnits]]. We do not preempt SI. Then any SimpleUnit or DerivedUnit or [[ConversionBasedUnit]] (all subclasses of Unit) can be selected as a baseUnit in a [[SystemOfUnits]]. In QUDV baseUnit is an OWL object property with domain=[[SystemOfUnits]] and range=Unit. Similar for simple and base QuantityKind. See http://www.omgwiki.org/OMGSysML/doku.php?id=sysml-qudv:qudv_owl for details.     (1I176)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Your baseUnit property is great. Right domain and right range.     (1I177)

Hajo Rijgersberg: But derived unit should also be such a property. Derived unit is system of units     (1I178)

Matthew West: I agree to rise above and give the capability to explain how different systems     (1I180)

interrelate.     (1I181)

David Leal: An issue is how a unit relates to a quantity. For length as a class of particular     (1I182)

quantity the metre is a subclass. For length as a class of magnitude of quantity the metre is a     (1I183)

member. Both views of length are useful. The first supports hierarchies, and the second is     (1I184)

mathematically tractable being a 1D vector space for which the metre can be selected as a basis.     (1I185)

Peter P. Yim: @Pat: if it's doable, your "rise above them" (ref. your slide #1) approach would make a     (1I186)

lot of sense, especially in light of the goal that we are not *just* trying to produce a good     (1I187)

ontology standard, we also *really* want to be adopted and embraced by stewards of existing     (1I188)

standard, as the overarching objective of having ontology-based standard as a first class citizen     (1I189)

that will sit alongside (natural language) standards     (1I190)

Hajo Rijgersberg: David, the metre can't be a subclass of quantity. It's a unit.     (1I191)

David Leal: Hajo - why not?     (1I192)

Matthew West: I think that it is ok to differ from the ISO standards, as long as we can support the     (1I193)

intent. But then there is an obligation to engage with the owners of those standards and try to     (1I194)

achieve consensus with them.     (1I195)

Hajo Rijgersberg: David, because we have the model the concepts in a clear way to all people. A metre     (1I196)

is not a quantity, it's definition (or reference if you wish) is in terms of a standard quantity.     (1I197)

And the metre isn't a measure either.     (1I198)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Hans Peter, why distinguish SimpleUnit and [[ConversionBasedUnit]]? Do they have     (1I199)

different properties?     (1I200)

Matthew West: I need to leave now.     (1I201)

HansPeter_de_Koning: To HR: Yes. A [[ConversionBasedUnit]] has a referenceUnit object property with domain:[[ConversionBasedUnit]] range:Unit.     (1I202)

HansPeter_de_Koning: I have to sign off now.     (1I203)

Frank Olken: New tentative date is Jan. 21, 2010 for the first meeting of the QUOMOS TC. This is to     (1I204)

accommodate OASIS scheduling constraints.     (1I205)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Hans Peter, you'll maybe read this later: I would propose a property "definition"     (1I206)

or "reference" with domain Unit and range Unit and Quantity (the latter for specific standard     (1I207)

quantities).     (1I208)

Frank Olken: Jan 7 Thursday willbe our next working teleconference. Expecting new drafts of texts,     (1I209)

and models.     (1I210)

Peter P. Yim: good session ... thanks! ... bye everyone.     (1I211)

Hajo Rijgersberg: Thank you for the organization!     (1I212)

Peter P. Yim: session ended 12:19pm PST     (1I213)

-- end of chat-transcript --     (1I214)

Further Question & Remarks:     (1I215)

  • please post them to the [ uom-ontology-std ] listserv     (1I216)
    • if you are already subscribed, post to <uom-ontology-std [at] ontolog.cim3.net>     (1I216A)
    • (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ uom-ontology-std ] listserv listserv, by sending a blank email to <uom-ontology-std-join [at] ontolog.cim3.net> from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.     (1I216B)

Audio Recording of this Session     (1J)


For the record ...     (1J6)

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


This page has been migrated from the OntologWiki - Click here for original page     (1K4)