On the communication of measurement results

Price, Gary

doi:10.1016/s0263-2241(00)00053-1

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A sound theoretical foundation is necessary before developing systems of measurement, quantities and units [56][57][58]. It seems that such a foundation may not yet have been developed, and that further refinement of metrological concepts and relations is justified.…”

Section: Opportunity 1: Harmonize the Si And Vim3 Concepts And Develo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The next 50 years of the SI: a review of the opportunities for the e-Science age

Foster¹

2010

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International System of Units (SI) was declared as a practical and evolving system in 1960 and is now 50 years old. A large amount of theoretical and experimental work has been conducted to change the standards for the base units from artefacts to physical constants, to improve their stability and reproducibility. Less attention, however, has been paid to improving the SI definitions, utility and usability, which suffer from contradictions, ambiguities and inconsistencies. While humans can often resolve these issues contextually, computers cannot. As an ever-increasing volume and proportion of data about physical quantities is collected, exchanged, processed and rendered by computers, this paper argues that the SI definitions, symbols and syntax should be made more rigorous, so they can be represented wholly and unambiguously in ontologies, programs, data and text, and so the SI notation can be rendered faithfully in print and on screen.

show abstract

Section: Opportunity 1: Harmonize the Si And Vim3 Concepts And Develo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The next 50 years of the SI: a review of the opportunities for the e-Science age

Foster¹

2010

Metrologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to H.P. Grice's classical account of speaker meaning, we rely on the recognition of our intention to communicate and we use that very recognition to get our message across [20]. In the context of data quality, this implies that in an ideal communication, there should be an exact match between intended and interpreted senses.…”

Section: The Meaning Aspectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to [20], in order to establish audience trust, both the sincerity and authority conditions have to hold. In the context of our framework, this means the user has to believe that the producer is neither a liar (i.e., no discrepancy caused intentionally, e.g., due to falsification) nor a fool (i.e., no discrepancy caused unintentionally, e.g., due to observation bias).…”

Section: The Trust Aspectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Compositional Semantic Account of Data Quality Attributes

Jiang

Borgida

Mylopoulos

2008

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We address the fundamental question: what does it mean for data in a database to be of high quality? We motivate our discussion with examples, where traditional views on data quality are found to be unsatisfactory. Our work is founded on the premise that data values are primarily linguistic signs that convey meaning from their producer to their user through senses and referents. In this setting, data quality issues arise when discrepancies occur during this communication. We sketch a theory of senses for individual values in a relational table based on its semantics expressed using some ontology. We use this to offer a compositional approach, where data quality is expressed in terms of a variety of primitive relationships among values and their senses. We evaluate our approach by accounting for quality attributes in other frameworks proposed in the literature. This exercise allows us to (i) reveal and differentiate multiple, sometimes conflicting, definitions of a quality attribute, (ii) accommodate competing views on how these attributes are related, and (iii) point to possible new definitions.

show abstract

“…Hence, to comparatively discuss results of a study makes only sense if the reported patterns are appropriately contrasted with the noise in the data, and the bias in experiment and data evaluation. There is always the abyss of convention that prevents a clear assessment of understanding in favour of mere mutual agreement [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%