Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [auto-iwg] Open Measurement Data WG vs. Auto WG?


Thanks for the reply. The existing site seemed like an empty shell, e.g. the demo client states "Not found". If a somewhat larger ecosystem like Eclipse can help foster that and projects that got actual code (like UOMo or others related to different WGs;-) may also come into play, then such new WG could also be attractive to areas outside Automotive.

Take the Unified Code for Units of Measure (which could even matter to some of the players or efforts there so far btw.) or UCUM, which has been widely accepted and often mandated by the Healthcare Industry. From USA to Australia but also a lot in Germany. However, through OGC and standards like SensorML embedding UCUM into some of these became attractive to other domains and in a few cases including Maritime Research you now also find it applied. The COAP presentation and standard efforts we saw in Toulouse also refer to it;-)


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:00 PM, <auto-iwg-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Send auto-iwg mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of auto-iwg digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Open Measurement Data WG vs. Auto WG? (UOMo)
   2. Re: Open Measurement Data WG vs. Auto WG? (Ralph Mueller)

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:14:29 +0200
From: Ralph Mueller <ralph.mueller@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Automotive Industry Working Group <auto-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [auto-iwg] Open Measurement Data WG vs. Auto WG?
Message-ID: <255D8811-2F61-4A1B-B918-39E4BBD16DDD@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Werner -

that?s all good questions that you are asking.

Let me give you some background. In the past couple of month, the openMDM community ( has worked with the EMO to transform it?s current organization into an Eclipse Working Group. There were many good reasons to consider this transformation, one being the open governance model of the Eclipse Foundation WG concept and the services provided by the Eclipse Foundation. In addition, the group had decided that the future open measured data projects should be developed as Eclipse projects under the EPL.

You also rightfully state that the ASAM is not really recognized outside the Automotive industry. This is (mostly) correct. And one of the goals of the working group is to promote adoption of ASAM in other industries, for example aerospace, ship building and so on. The group hopes that this can be achieved in a similar way as the TopCased project transformed into the Polarsys working group and was starting to reach out into other systems engineering domains.

So mostly the drivers of the openMDM initiative (namely the German OEM?s Audi AG, Daimler AG and BMW Group) drove the idea of this transformation.

Why do they propose an independent working group rather than participating in an existing one like Auto WG, Polarsys, Science or IoT?
The answer is related to the CPR institutions design principles of the Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom, which state that a successful CPR needs to have clearly defined boundaries and rules etc. In our case this means that the open measured data management WG had requirements  regarding the governance processes for their working group that are not applicable to other WGs at Eclipse.

Taking all this together led us to the conviction that the creation of (yet) another WG was the right approach. Having worked very closely with the openMDM team I fully agree and support this approach.

Hope this helps.
Regards / Liebe Gr??e,

Ralph Mueller

Director, Eclipse Foundation
Mobile: +49 177 449 0460
Office: +49 6251 789545

Am 26.06.2014 um 23:44 schrieb UOMo <uomo@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> All,
> As both Mike and also UOMo comitter Chris Senior (in a JSR 363 related mailing list) mentioned the idea of a ASAM Open Measurement Data Working Group, I was wondering how it relates to this one? (Automotive)
> There is practically no standard or member of ASAM outside the Automotive industry and current Auto WG Members, so what is the rational behind (yet) another WG here?
> The propposed charter ( mentions no other WG although it seems almost every other like Auto, IoT or PolarSys as well as Science, (if the "Measurement" is related to general Measurement units, like among otehr ASAM documents strongly suggest) should be.
> NetCDF which above PDF refers to includes a "fork" of JSR 108, the first of 3 Unit JSRs, you can consider it a great-grandfather of JSR 363/Unit-API.
> So where Open Measurement Data WG was open to include existing (Technology) projects similar to what we heard about Science recently, it sounded like a good match for OUMo.
> Question is, why are none ot the other WGs including this one are not mentioned so far?
> Cheers,
> Werner
> _______________________________________________
> auto-iwg mailing list
> auto-iwg@xxxxxxxxxxx

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>


auto-iwg mailing list

End of auto-iwg Digest, Vol 50, Issue 4

Back to the top