RE: [FDM] Recommendation Document V0,6 for review

[matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk]

Dear Colleagues,
Prompted by Steven, I've taken another look at the paper from an editorial perspective. Attached the results as V0.6 (marked up so you can see the changes).
I think we are about ready to move on to the next stage (liaising with the chair of the endorsing group for readability by them). So I'll put a deadline of 1700 Friday for further comments at this stage.
Thanks all for your contributions which have been a great help.
Regards
Matthew West

-----Original Message-----
From: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com <uk-nd...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Steven Kraines
Sent: 27 August 2020 04:29
To: uk-nd...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [FDM] Recommendation Document V0,5 for review

Hi Matthew,

I just took a quick look at the paper.
It reads much more clearly, I think, but there are still some typos and confusing phrasing.
Will you have the paper checked by an editor before "going to press"?

I appreciated the example of the abnormal load - it is probably relevant to the ASAM domain as well.
I think I understand what you are trying to convey with this example, but I can't help wondering if the kinds of people you are expecting to read this paper will.

In particular, I understand that it is just the "activities" (or the occurrents?) that express the temporal changes (essentially movements) of the vehicle itself that do not need to be duplicated, right?
For example, there should be an activity that is not the vehicle corresponding to the statement "the vehicle is loaded at the end of the day", correct?
In particular, the implication is that someone or something different from the vehicle is the actor of that activity. So this activity will be a different object from the vehicle - is that right?

One other thing about the paper that bothers me a bit - you write "Considering the detailed content of these four, although each has some valuable features, none encompasses all the features desirable for our purposes with the Foundation Data Model."
But I cannot find anything about what specific features each of the four alone do not encompass. In fact, the overall paper (and the survey paper) seem to indicate that the four ontologies pass all of the tests with flying colors. Again, I do not know much about the potential readership of the paper, but I wonder if that would not appear at least somewhat suspicious.

I apologize for not raising this concern earlier - I hope that it is not too late to address it (if in fact it is a concern that does need to be addressed).

Best,

Steven

On 2020/08/26 18:31, matthe...@informationjunction.co.uk wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Thank you again for your various comments. They have been very helpful.
> Please find attached a revised version responding to those comments.
> Please check that my response is adequate and raise any remaining
> issued, or new ones that have been introduced.
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/00bc01d67b8b%24bc94d770%2
> 435be8650%24%40informationjunction.co.uk
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/00bc01d67b8b%24bc94d770%2435be8650%24%40informationjunction.co.uk?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UK NDT FDM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uk-ndt-fdm+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/uk-ndt-fdm/4c803e12-b998-7494-ba36-841a312cbe60%40kraines.net.