UoM Ontology Standard/Workshop 2009 10 30

= UoM_Ontology_Standard workshop (Face-to-Face) - Fri 2009-10-30 =

Topic: Moving the UoM_Ontology_Standard Forward
Workshop Co-chair: Mr. EdwardBarkmeyer (NIST), Dr. FrankOlken (NSF) & Mr. HowardMason (BAE, ISO)

''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.''


 * Location:

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

Our NSF Host: Dr. FrankOlken


 * Registration, Venue & Remote dial-in information


 * Agenda

Archives

 * Abstract
 * Our panel's prepared slides can be accessed by clicking on the [ slides ] links against each agenda items below
 * one could access the entire collection of slides and other related material here.
 * Audio Recording of the session: (mp3)*
 * Recording segment-1: (i) [ Opening & Progress-to-date ] (1:06:07 ; 7.6MB)
 * Recording segment-2: (ii) [ Consensus on Scope ] (2:07:23 ; 15.0MB)
 * Recording segment-3: (iii) [ Moving Ahead to an SDO ] (2:15:15 ; 15.0MB)
 * [ Transcript of the online chat session ] during the panel discussion
 * additional [ Resources ] and follow-up
 * pictures of some of those who were on-site at the workshop at the NSF venue

Session Details:

 * Date: Friday, 30-October-2009
 * Start Time: 8:30am EDT / 5:30am PDT / 1:30pm CEST / 12:30pm BST / 12:30 UTC
 * ref. [ World Clock ]
 * Expected Session Duration: please refer to agenda details below
 * Remote Dial-in Number: see - Session Access Details


 * Discussions and Q & A:
 * Anyone who wants to speak should raise their hands and/or be recognized by the session chair first, before doing so.
 * Before you speak, please always identify yourself and make sure you can be heard (by both onsite and remote participants)
 * You can type in your questions or comments through the browser based chat session by:
 * pointing a separate browser tab (or window) to http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room and enter: Room="uom_20091030" and My Name="Your Own Name" (e.g. "JaneDoe")
 * or point your browser to: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/uom_20091030
 * 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.
 * For remote participants, (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.)
 * 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)  ... Handy for mobile devices!


 * This session, like all other Ontolog events, is open to the public. Information relating to this session is shared on this wiki page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard/Workshop_2009_10_30


 * Please note that this session may be recorded, and if so, the audio archive is expected to be made available as open content, along with the proceedings of the call to our community membership and the public at-large under our prevailing open IPR policy.

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


 * 8:30am EDT Welcome, introductions, administrivia - FrankOlken


 * 9:00 goals of the workshop - HowardMason ...  [ slides ]
 * Motivation and market for this work
 * rules for conducting the meeting (if there are many attendees),
 * call for agenda items, adoption of agenda
 * Proposed work plan going forward (preview here ... to be adopted towards end of session) - JoelBender / PeterYim ... [ slides ] from 2009.10.22

Accomplishments-to-date:


 * 9:15 Selection of base documents - moderator: EdBarkmeyer
 * the VIM
 * ISO/IEC 80000
 * UN/ECE Rec. 20
 * QUDT
 * SWEET
 * UCUM
 * UnitsML
 * SysML / QUDV
 * other?


 * 9:30 Agreement on languages - moderator: EdBarkmeyer
 * proposed is OWL (OWL2 DL), CLIF (owl-ized), and UML class diagrams for presentation/discussion


 * 9:40 Discussion on Work-in-progress Drafts - moderator: FrankOlken
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_English_draft - EdBarkmeyer
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_UML_Model_draft - DavidLeal
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_OWL_draft - RobRaskin, ChipMasters & HansPeter_de_Koning
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_CLIF_draft - PatHayes


 * 10:00 Break

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


 * 10:15 Scope issues
 * ref. draft scope statement - EdBarkmeyer ... [ slides ]
 * units only, or quantities and units models
 * specific named units: SI-only, metric-only, the UCUM set
 * relationship to existing standards - VIM, UCUM, UnitsML, etc.
 * conversion
 * scales
 * measurement and uncertainty
 * specification and tolerance
 * priorities and microtheories
 * other?


 * 12:00-1:00pm EDT - lunch

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


 * 1:00 Standardization Strategy - HowardMason ... [ slides ]
 * OASIS and the OASIS Process - JamieClark
 * confirmation on moving project to OASIS
 * discussion: proposed OASIS TC Charter
 * see: UoM_Ontology_Standard_OASIS_TC_Charter_draft
 * identification of the OASIS TC conveners/initial-workgroup

Content Issues:


 * 1:30 Alignment issues (from base docs) - PatHayes
 * basic conceptual concern: what is a measurement unit (a quantity, a magnitude, something completely different)
 * dimensions and dimensional algebras
 * derivation representation
 * conversion representation
 * other?


 * 2:45 break

Workplan & Next Steps:


 * 3:00 next steps
 * adopt a workplan
 * action items, target dates
 * telecon schedule
 * resources


 * 3:30 adjournment

Proceedings
Please refer to the archives above

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

PeterYim: Welcome to the: UoM_Ontology_Standard workshop (Face-to-Face) - Fri 2009-10-30 (210C) Topic: Moving the UoM_Ontology_Standard Forward

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

JoelBender: Hello anon!

anonymous1 morphed into RogerBurkhart

anonymous morphed into Silvia Gaio

anonymous morphed into HansPeter_de_Koning

anonymous morphed into Bo Vargas (Raytheon)

PeterYim: 8:50am EDT - session started ...

PeterYim: participants introduced themselves

PeterYim: FrankOlken declared the session open

PeterYim: 8:57am - HowardMason - presenting our "Goals"

FrankOlken: FrankOlken has jointed the chat room.

FrankOlken: HowardMason is presenting a brief talk on our goals for the project.

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.

FrankOlken: We are now discussing the base documents.

FrankOlken: VIM is available from BIPM at http://www.bipm.org. It is a       vocabulary for understanding units of measurements. 9:09 AM

FrankOlken: ISO 80000 is a now a successor to ISO 31 (SI units). 9:10 am

FrankOlken: UN/ECE Recommendation 20 is from UN/CEFACT. This is a       recommendation for use in cross border trade. 9:11 am

FrankOlken: QUDT was produced by Top Quadrant, for NASA Ames. 9:12       ChipMasters is now discussing this.

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

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

ChipMasters: The QUDT draft specification and links to the ontology files can be found here http://www.qudt.org

FrankOlken: UCUM is being adopted by HL7 and Open Geospatial Information consortium. Developed by Gunther Schadow (not present).

FrankOlken: There is some argument about UCUM - it only considers units not quantities. 9:14 am

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

anonymous morphed into NicolaGuarino

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.

FrankOlken: UnitsML tries to sort out units, beyond ISO, UCUM.

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

FrankOlken: QUDV now has a version as an OWL ontology. Documented on the OMG wiki site.

ChipMasters: Hans, thanks for clarifying the source SysML source for QUDT.

NicolaGuarino: Is the shared screen working?

FrankOlken: 9:19am - Nicola, no we do not have the shared screen working. You need to download slides directly from the web page,

FrankOlken: Correct spelling is HansPeter_de_Koning.

anonymous morphed into BrandNiemann

FrankOlken: Welcome BrandNiemann, we are now discussing the base documents.

PeterYim: Agenda for the meeting is at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard/Workshop_2 009_10_30#nid22GX

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

JoelBender: http://clarkparsia.com/files/pdf/units-owled2008-eu.pdf

FrankOlken: See also Quantities in OWL at http://bit.ly/2wodVR by Bijan Parsia and Michael Smith, presented at OWLED 2008.

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

FrankOlken: 9:27 am - For QUDT see the presentation at       http://bit.ly/47v3gF

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

FrankOlken: PatHayes - CLIF suitable for normative representation, rather than implementation.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer notes that we will likely use OWL (OWL Full? OWL       DL?) also.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer notes the possible use of UML diagrams to help understand the UoM ontology. 9:32 am

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer notes UML diagrams will not be normative.

FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer - I am sure we will use OWL 2.0.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: we should publish as much as possible in OWL 2.0 DL.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: rationale for use of OWL is to get it out to the world.

FrankOlken: Also use OWL 2.0 Full when necessary.

SteveRay: Bottom line, the normative version will be in CLIF, with informative versions available in OWL and UML, right?

FrankOlken: PatHayes: The point of the CLIF version is as a reference for implementors.

PatHayes: @Steve: Yes, I think that is basically right.

FrankOlken: Will the anonymous person please change yourself so as to       identify yourself. Click on settings button to do this. .....9:40 am

FrankOlken: PatHayes: OWL 2 is definitely better than OWL 1, i.e., more expressive.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: We need to make it clear the users of ontology are required to implement in CLIF.

anonymous morphed into Mark Rivas

FrankOlken: HowardMason: CLIF will be normative reference, will also publish informative version in OWL 2 DL.

PatHayes: Frank: NOT required...

FrankOlken: Pat, do you mean that OWL 2 DL is not a required publication?

FrankOlken: Hans-Peter, are there tools for publication into CLIF, e.g., syntax checkers?

FrankOlken: PatHayes: yes, there are parsers.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: There is a CLIF mail exploder to standards/tool developers.

FrankOlken: JoelBender: people will gravitate to the document in the language they know.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: In SC4 that would be text files or xml.

FrankOlken: SteveRay: This will help adoption (multi-lingual versions).

SteveRay: The advantage is that people can stay in their comfort zones regarding development environments.

FrankOlken: RogerBurkhardt: QUDT also uses Object Constraint Language.

PeterYim: 9:50am EDT - review / discussion on work-in-progress (draft)

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.

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.

FrankOlken: We are getting ready to resume the discussion here shortly -10:21:00

HansPeter_de_Koning: @Joel: I fully agree. Ideally we should have an       automated way of generating alternative informative specifications, avoiding dependence on human transformations.

PatHayes: @Joel: I agree this is an issue we should be aware of. Just baldly publishing several 'versions' would not do the job.

PeterYim: 10:25am EDT now going into "Scope issues"

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer is speaking on the Scope of the Units of Measure Ontology. see his slides linked from the meeeting agenda.

FrankOlken: First issue units of measure only, or also quantities. UCUM has not quantities. NIST believes we need quantities.

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.

FrankOlken: PatHayes, PeterYim, FrankOlken agree that we need quantities.

FrankOlken: GuntherSchadow wanted only units - but he is not on the call.

FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino concurs with units + quantities, also wants reference frames for coordinates, etc.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: by the model of quantities you mean to include dimensionality. EdBarkmeyer the VIM talks about quantities, measurements, units. See David Leal's

FrankOlken: See DavidLeal's UML diagrams on his web page.

anonymous morphed into JamieClark

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer - SI is about scalar quantities. Do we restrict scope to scalar quantities.

FrankOlken: We need to talk about vector quantities to differentiate between work and torque.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: we have a model of quantities which allows tensor measurements.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: start with scalars and do tensors later.

FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: Differentiating between torque and work is       non-trivial.

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.

FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: simply create base types for vectors but do       not explicate them further.

HansPeter_de_Koning: Terminology: tensor of rank 0 is scalar; rank 1 is       vector; rank 2 is matrix; rank > 2 is higher order tensor

FrankOlken: PatHayes: We should be careful about saying that the ontology defines things.

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?

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We are drifting in substantive issues, not just scope matters. I want to return to what the scope of the ontology.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We clearly need to address scalars, possibly vectors, ... tensors.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: particular quantity is a property of a specific physical object.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: ref to PatHayes, two stick both 30 cm long ==> these are two different particular quantities.

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.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: we do not need particular quantities.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: we only need abstract quantities, not particular quantities.

FrankOlken: JoeCollins: we need both notions.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: quantity kind is sometimes referred as       dimension.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: If these particular quantities are understood strictly, e.g., "mass-of". Two different protons cannot have the same mass. Are we talking

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

FrankOlken: to model physical laws.

FrankOlken: JamieClark: A rough consensus on abstract quantities, but we       will need some notion of particular quantities.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: The issue we cannot get rid of is that of       particular measurements (with errors uncertainties).

FrankOlken: PatHayes: purely philosophical issue of what we want to       ontologize. Particular quantities are useless in the ontology.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Physicists think in terms of particular quantities.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: we have will have URI for quantities, quantity kinds (dimensionality).

FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: PatHayes seems to want to get rid of       particular quantities.

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

FrankOlken: PatHayes: one can speak about length of meeting without reference to a particular measurement.

PatHayes: Nicola is correct

FrankOlken: HowardMason: we have identified an issue, the extent we       connect to external standards for quantities.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We certainly need abstract quantities, unclear about particular quantities.

FrankOlken: Pavithra: quantity is not an object, it is an attribute. It       has types.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: as designed measurement, as manufactured measurement.

NicolasRouquette: Agree with Pavithra; I think that NicolaGuarino's       question could be stated as follows:

PatHayes: I agree with Pavritha also.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: kind of quantities = dimensions. The nature of       the thing being measured.

PatHayes: Some kinds of Q may be distinguished on other criteria than dimension.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: quantity kinds can be subtyped: length can be       height, depth, width, ....

FrankOlken: I prefer dimensionality to quantity kind.

FrankOlken: ChipMasters: we need both ..., dimensionality presumes a       system of units ....

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.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: dimensionality presuppses choice of       base unit ....

FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: count is another quantity kind.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: we need to differntiate between quantity kind and quantity role (length vs. height, width, ...)

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

FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: Two different quantities might have same dimension.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: quantity kinds and dimension kinds

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: dimension = quantity kind role

HansPeter_de_Koning: The VIM terms are "kind of quantity" and "quantity       dimension"

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 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.

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.

anonymous morphed into NSF-venue

FrankOlken: Dimension seems overloaded. Dimension in physics seems to       mean quantity kind. Dimension in engineering is a role (e.g., height,       width).

FrankOlken: JamieClark: we should defer further discussion to       substantive phase of the project.

FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: We need to tie our concepts to standards, standard termionologies, e.g., VIM.

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.

ChipMasters: http://books.google.com/books?id=pIlCAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

FrankOlken: ChipMasters: dimensionality = systems dimension (dependent       on systems of measure)

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.

JoeCollins: "quantity dimension" is well defined, "dimension" is not

FrankOlken: PeterYim: We should stick to the VIM as closely as possible.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Chapter I conflates two notions of quantity (Ch. I of VIM). VIM was written by physicists not engineer.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We will to model systems of quantities.

NicolasRouquette: Ed: could you specifically point to where VIM is       ambiguous or conflicting about the notion of quantity?

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Will we model any other systems than SI?

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.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We will model systems of quantities. Will we       model any other systems of measurement within this ontology.

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.

NicolasRouquette: (ISQ = Int. System of Quantities, which is part of       ISO/IEC 80000)

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.

PeterYim: Hans-Peter, you are putting music onto our phone line ...       please do not put your phone on hold

FrankOlken: Some from European Space Agency has put us on hold and is       paying music. Please do not do this.

HansPeter_de_Koning: Apologies! I had a call on my second line...

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyers: We are discussing systems of quantities (not       yet systems of units).

PeterYim: thank you, Hans-Peter

PatHayes: @Hans-Peter: it was very entertaining.

FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: QUDV can handle multiple systems of       quantities.

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.

PeterYim: @NicolaGuarino - could you document the point you just made on       this chat board, please

FrankOlken: HowardMason: To what extent we cover other systems of       quantities than SI?

FrankOlken: ChipMasters: Charge = sqrt of force (via Coulomb's Law)

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyers: Do we cover derived quantities as come computation over base quantities? Does anyone disagree?

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.

FrankOlken: ChipMasters: I disagree, this would requite an ontology of       operators.

FrankOlken: FrankOlken: I agree with Ed.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: We could have an incomplete model of derivations.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: Derivations are simple.

FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: Both VIM and QUDV include derivations of       derived units.

FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: VIM and QUDV differentiate between quantity kinds and dimenisonality.

NicolasRouquette: @Frank: My name is spelled Rouquette, not Roquette.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: Derived units are within scope. Details to be       determined.

FrankOlken: Pavithra: record system of units explicitly.

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).

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: We need to model systems of units explicitly.

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?

FrankOlken: JoeCollins: cgs units are not part of SI. Include SI named units, metric prefixes?

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: separate out derived units

FrankOlken: PatHayes: I agree - put derived units in a library, not core ontology.

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

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: there are libraries out there ... Do we assume that libraries will become published extensions? What about UCUM? But they are not ontologies ....

FrankOlken: HowardMason: Scope will include how to do extensions.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: rule based registry or explicit choice maintenance authority?

FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: Need a model of unit derviation.

FrankOlken: I agree with Ed on unit derivation.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: we will not formalize real arithmetic in OWL, likely not in Common Logic.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We specify explicilty dimensionsal analysis in QUDV - including derivation of derived units and quantities.

FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: We only do simple derivations, expect we will need to support unit conversion.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Are scales within scope: ratio scales (length,       time) Absolute scales (mass, temperature)?

FrankOlken: Yes, I think so.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: What about Rockwell Hardness?

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We included absolute scales in QUDV. It       is essential for many engineering applications.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: should ontology include general notion of scales and situate SI within this framework?

FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: We will need scales.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: We cannot avoid scales.

FrankOlken: NicolaGuarino: What about inverse properties such as       resistance and conductance ...

PeterYim: @Nicola - can you give us the name of the book you cited again, please

NicolaGuarino: Albert Tarantola: Elements for Physics: Quantities, Qualities, and Intrinsic Theories

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: we need a general framework for scales.

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.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: What about nonlinear scales - logarithmic, e.g       sound intensity in decibels.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: what about scales such as rockwell hardness.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: It is just a partial order.

FrankOlken: Actually, it is a total ordering.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Do we model unit conversions?

FrankOlken: Evan Wallace: Yes, otherwise we are wasting our time.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We do it, it is simple.

FrankOlken: SteveRay: ChipMasters was concerned with the mathematical operators needed.

RaviSharma: EvanWallace: Yes or else there will be no communication between the different measurement systems.

FrankOlken: chipMasters: We all want unit conversions.

FrankOlken: ChipMasters: we need to model logarithmic functions.

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.

FrankOlken: HowardMason; no dissent on need for units conversion modelling within the ontology.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: do we model particular quantities and measurements? in first draft?

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.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: The physicists are excited about particular measurements.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: This threatens to take us into the realms of       other standards.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: We need particular quantities for the standard to       be useful. Perhaps we can partially specify this.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: Include in scope some discussion of measured values ...

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: TC 213 does tolerance and uncertainty. Do we       model tolerances? This has significant commercial significance.

NicolaGuarino: I have to go now, bybye everybody. Nice discussion!

FrankOlken: Steve Ray: We need to differentiate measurement uncertainty and specification tolerance (descriptive, vs. prescriptive).

FrankOlken: SteveRay: Can we avoid prescriptive notions of tolerance?

FrankOlken: SteveRay: Tolerances and measurement uncertainty are separable issues.

FrankOlken: I favor defering issues to tolerances.

FrankOlken: Evan Wallace: This is an artificial distinction. this is       problematic for commerce.

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: We should limit discuss of tolerance.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: We will not consider tolerances in first release.

FrankOlken: No consensus about measurement uncertainty.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer will not include either measurement uncertainty or tolerance within first version.

FrankOlken: EdBarkemeyer: Should we divide the ontology into modules? Yes? Unclear, how?

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.

FrankOlken: OWL 2 is working on modularization. CLIF?

FrankOlken: PatHayes: Yes, CLIF has modularization scheme, including restricting scope of existential quantities.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: We want modularization.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: module import is transtive

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Explicit microtheories - possibly inconsistent with each other?

FrankOlken: PatHayes: Names can mean different things within metatheories. This is risky within a standard.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: You can get something similar by subscripting names with contexts in common logic.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: We do not want full CYC microtheories - e.g., multiple meanings for names within microtheories.

PatHayes: metatheory//microtheory

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyers: Should we include guidance for how to do       extensions to this standard? Yes !!!

PatHayes: Yes, as far as we can.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: relationship to other standards efforts? UCUM? UnitsML? Other?

PatHayes: HOw can a mere mortal like myself get hold of a readable copy of iso 80000 ?

NicolasRouquette: You can find VIM and various publications related to       ISO/IEC 80000 here:

NicolasRouquette: http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/

FrankOlken: HansPeter_de_Koning: Use NIST document on treatment of       English units as example for how to do extensions.

FrankOlken: JerrySmith: When we get to 80 percent, publish!

FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: We need to know where the repository will how, implications for intellectual property.

HansPeter_de_Koning: NIST document SP 811 http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP811/

FrankOlken: HowardMason: This closes scope discussion.

PeterYim: 12:29pm - lunch break

JoelBender: Is the conference line staying open?

FrankOlken: We will resume at 1:15 PM, 17:15 PM UK, 18:15 Europeans time - i.e., 45 minutes.

PeterYim: 1:19pm - back in session

PatHayes: Ed: do we have a referenceable summary of what we agreed this morning?

JoelBender: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html

FrankOlken: We have resumed the meeting.

FrankOlken: We are now discussing the standardization strategy.

FrankOlken: It appears that we use OASIS as the base Standards Development Organization.

FrankOlken: OASIS will accommodate a variety of file formats including xml, xhtml.

FrankOlken: After OASIS standard would be forwarded to ISO (or possibly       W3C).

JamieClark: Or both; issue of where to submit will be for the committee once the have a final OASIS Standard product.

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.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Unhappy at the prospect of falling into the clutches of the W3C.

FrankOlken: PatHayes: I am guessing that W3C will pass.....

FrankOlken: HowardMason: We want to avoid going through more than one standardization process.

FrankOlken: JoelBender: during the standards development process the draft documents will be available on the TRAC server ...

FrankOlken: JamieClark: We will need a copy of the standards drafts on       the OASIS server (even the working documents).

FrankOlken: JamieClark: OASIS also has site for email for standards development.

FrankOlken: JamieClark: Many XML based projects have run aground on XML tools issues.

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.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: The committee will establish coordinating processes

JamieClark: OASIS rules permit use of properly administered outside tools for hosting functions we don't carry out internally.

FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette: Andrew Watson at OMG is the right person for coordination of OMG and OASIS work.

FrankOlken: JamieClark: Show the SysML the charter, ask if they want to       be involved with the creation of the UML model for UoM ontology.

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

JoelBender: Thank you.

FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: I do not see problems of coordinating the OMG and OASIS work.

FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: I chair the SysML revision group.

FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart: Original SysML submitters gave very permissive license.

FrankOlken: NicolasRouquette: We have used ODM mappings to translate to/from UML, Owl.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: No dissent on use of OASIS as the vehicle for this ontology standard.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: Let us start discussion of the charter of the standards group.

FrankOlken: HowardMason: Proposed name: QUOMOS: Quantity and Units of       Measure Ontology Standard

FrankOlken: HowardMason: Do we include usage rules in the standard?

FrankOlken: Various: no

NicolasRouquette: Ed, are you saying that you don't like SysML? I'm       choked!

JoelBender: (there is a quite a bit of discussion that is difficult to       hear on the conference call)

FrankOlken: I think we should avoid business rules - as too politically sensitive.

FrankOlken: Goal is electronic open-access document.

FrankOlken: OASIS: non-asssertion regime. Membership in the TC waives your rights to content of standard.

FrankOlken: Intended users: development of information models

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Also document markup developers

FrankOlken: Also data exchange markup developers.

FrankOlken: Evan: You skipped over a section on "dimensions". We need to       be clear about quantity kind.

FrankOlken: Language for conducting business: English.

FrankOlken: Various standards to coordinate: UnitsML, BIPM, ISO 80000,

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.

FrankOlken: Do we need a heartbeat - a regular working draft publication?

anonymous1 morphed into HajoRijgersberg

FrankOlken: JamieClark: forward standard to ISO in charter?

FrankOlken: consensus: No.

FrankOlken: Draft title of standard: Quantity and Unit of Measure Ontology Standard (QUOMOS)

FrankOlken: NIST (is a member of OASIS) and will support the standard.

FrankOlken: PeterYim (is an individual member of OASIS) and will support the standard development.

FrankOlken: BAE will suport the standard and is a member of OASIS.

FrankOlken: NicolasRoquette (JPL) will support.

FrankOlken: NSF is not a member of OASIS.

FrankOlken: RogerBurkhart (John Deere) is not a member.

FrankOlken: Eurostep may support this.

FrankOlken: OMG is not a member of OASIS.

FrankOlken: NIST, JPL, BAE?, CMU?, Eurostep, LBNL?, --- we need to get approval of primary OASIS members.

FrankOlken: DOD DISA is a member of OASIS, could also endorse the standard.

FrankOlken: Schedule for first meeting?

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: I am estimating mid-January, 2010 for first meeting. Mostly teleconference.

NicolasRouquette: Bye.

FrankOlken: JamieClark: First meeting is likely to be just a       teleconference.

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

FrankOlken: HowardMason: OASIS needs to request of Mike Smith a copy of       ISO 80000 for purposes of the ontology std development.

PeterYim: above suggested by HowardMason

FrankOlken: We will resume in 5 minutes.

FrankOlken: We are reconvening now.

HansPeter_de_Koning: I am back on-line and in the audio conference

FrankOlken: We are trying to schedule a teleconference (perhaps a part       of Ontolog Forum) to discuss QUOMOS project.

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

FrankOlken: HowardMason: We need all contributions, and names of       sponsoring persons, organizations within OASIS by Nov. 16, 2009.

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 ]

FrankOlken: We now need a list of deliverables to go into the charter.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: A bunch of modules, each in CLIF, derived OWL 2 DL, UML pictures, explanatory English text.

FrankOlken: Modules will be quantities, units, and scales. Optional units on measurement uncertainty, tolerances.

FrankOlken: I may be able to participate as a representative of OASIS member LBNL.

FrankOlken: Deliverables: we will produce xxxx initially. We may produce xxx modules later.

FrankOlken: We will start with SI base, and extension mechanism.

FrankOlken: EdBarkmeyer: Quantities, Units of Measure, Scales, SI base units, Derived Units, ... modules

FrankOlken: Maybe also a module called Dimensions.

FrankOlken: A core set of modules covering quantities, units of measure, scales, SI base units, Derived Units, Dimensions, and Extension mechanism.

HajoRijgersberg: How about measures? And how about quantity kinds? Are they regarded as separate concepts or as classification of quantities?

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

FrankOlken: Eachmodule shall include: CLIF, OWL @ DL,

HansPeter_de_Koning: I think my line is muted from your side?

HajoRijgersberg: I'm sorry, people, I should have sent it earlier. Something went wrong with starting time interpretation here...

JoelBender: (it is very difficult to hear, there is still an office       conversation obliterating the conference)

FrankOlken: Hans Peter, We seem to be getting background noise from your phone.

HansPeter_de_Koning: I will try to reconnect...

FrankOlken: HowardMason: The TC will plan to meet every 2 weeks.

FrankOlken: The standard will be known as Quantities and Units of       Measure Ontology Standard (QUOMOS). There was consensus on this.

FrankOlken: Who is editing the charter? HowardMason can finish the week of Nov. 16. EdBarkmeyer can mark up the wiki in the meantime.

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"?

PatHayes: Hajo, I think the title isnt meant to be proscriptive, only a       general indication.

FrankOlken: Dimensions are within scope, just not in the title.

FrankOlken: Any other items of business?

PatHayes: However, QUODMOS is kind of cute....

FrankOlken: HowardMason: We are adjourned.

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!

PeterYim: Great session ... thank you everyone ... audio recording and chat transcript will be posted tomorrow.

PeterYim: Appreciations to FrankOlken and NSF for hosting us today!

-- session ended: 2009.10.30 - 15:30 EDT --


 * Further Questions & Follow-up: - please post them to the [ uom-ontology-std ] listserv
 * if you are already subscribed, post to 
 * (if you are not yet subscribed) you may subscribe yourself to the [ uom-ontology-std ] listserv listserv, by sending a blank email to  from your subscribing email address, and then follow the instructions you receive back from the mailing list system.
 * Mark your calendars and come join us at the next virtual session for this working group - UoM_Ontology_Standard/ConferenceCall_2009_11_19
 * we shall look forward to those who are interested to support this effort to consider joining us at the developing OASIS QUOMOS TC - watch out for the announcement of its formation from both OASIS and ONTOLOG

Audio Recording of the Workshop Sessions:

 * To download the recorded segments of the workshop, click on the respective audio link under the archives section
 * individual recording segment are linked to from each of the agenda items above
 * the playback of the audio files require the proper setup, and an MP3 compatible player on your computer.
 * Conference Date and Time:	30-Oct-2009 8:50am~3:30pm EDT
 * Total Duration of Recordings:	5 Hour 29 Minutes - (i) 1:06:07 ; (ii) 2:07:23 ; (iii) 2:15:15
 * Total Recording File Size: 37.6 MB (in mp3 format) - (i) 7.6; (ii) 15.0; (iii) 15.0 MB
 * suggestions:
 * its best that you listen to the session while having the respective slide presentations (when available) opened on your desktop in front of you. You'll be prompted to advance slides by the speaker.
 * ... *my apologies for the "echos" in quite a portion of the audio recording ... I was away from my normal recording equipment and settings, and evidently, still has issues doing it right while on the road. Anyhow, I am glad the audio archive is still quite intelligible! =ppy/2009.11.01

Resources:

 * UoM Working Group Work-in-progress:
 * Wiki workspace: UoM_Ontology_Standard & UoM
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_English_draft
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_UML_Model_draft
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_OWL_draft
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_CLIF_draft
 * UoM_Ontology_Standard_OASIS_TC_Charter_draft
 * Workplan
 * Coordination - UoM_Ontology_Standard/GettingOrganized
 * Progress tracking - http://uom.emcs.cornell.edu/
 * Mailing List:
 * message archive is at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
 * to join the list, send a blank email from your subscribing address to 
 * shared file repository: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
 * UoM virtual panel session 2009.06.19 - ConferenceCall_2009_06_19
 * UoM virtual panel session 2009.09.24 - ConferenceCall_2009_09_24
 * UoM virtual workshop preview session 2009.10.22 - UoM_Ontology_Standard/ConferenceCall_2009_10_22
 * OntologySummit2009
 * OntologySummit2009_Communique
 * FrankOlken's talk during the OntologySummit2009_Symposium on "Quantities and Units of Measure" as a candidate ontology-based standard we can work on
 * Earlier discussion:
 * thread starting from: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2009-06/msg00005.html
 * thread starting from: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2009-05/msg00000.html
 * continuing from: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2009-05/msg00038.html
 * and: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/2009-05/msg00062.html
 * upload your UoM ontologies to the OOR-sandbox at: http://oor-01.cim3.net

For the records ...

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

 * 1. Dial in with a phone: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard/Workshop_2009_10_30_Registration#nid22JR
 * 2. Open chat in a new browser window: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/uom_20091030
 * and, 2.2 ... follow the process described here
 * 3. Download presentations for each speaker by clicking on the link associated with each agenda item

On-site Participants:

 * FrankOlken (co-chair)
 * EdBarkmeyer (co-chair)
 * HowardMason (co-chair)
 * SteveRay
 * PeterYim
 * PatHayes
 * JamieClark
 * ChipMasters
 * PavithraKenjige (observer)
 * JoeCollins
 * JerrySmith
 * EvanWallace

Remote Participants:

 * JoelBender
 * RobRaskin
 * NicolaGuarino
 * RogerBurkhart
 * HansPeter_De_Koning
 * Silvia Gaio (University of Padua, Italy) (observer)
 * BrandNiemann (observer)
 * Bogart Vargas (Raytheon) (observer)
 * Mark Rivas (consultant working with BTA, UK) (observer)
 * NicolasRouquette
 * RaviSharma (observer)
 * HajoRijgersberg