search

ucum-org / ucum

https://ucum.org
Other
48 stars 10 forks source link

Use of UCUM in industrial applications #225

Open timbrisc opened 2 years ago

timbrisc commented 2 years ago

Issue migrated from trac ticket # 5827

component: organization | priority: trivial | keywords: industrial applications

2022-06-20 08:12:47: carsten.born@vitronic.com created the issue

Hello UCUM Team,

in your UCUM introduction you are stating: "We are still looking for the best way to establish this specification as a widely used industry standard." Therefore I want to inform you that we are currently planing to make a huge step forward to reach this goal.

I am currently member of a joint working group of VDMA (Mechanical Engineering Industry Association), VDW (German Machine Tool Builders’ Association) and OPC-Foundation hosting the OPC UA standard. OPC UA is the base protocol for industrial communication under the "Industry 4.0" label. We are currently developing a new data model for expression of engineering units associated to a variable and we are planing to recommend the use of UCUM expressions to name the units.

I would like to double check that we are not violating any of your license terms. Could you please get in contact with me so that I can show you what and how we are planing to do ?

Best Regards Carsten Born

dr-shorthair commented 1 year ago

Effectively a duplicate of #228

gschadow commented 1 year ago

Where is this text "We are still looking for the best way to establish this specification as a widely used industry standard."?

I found it in https://ucum.org/about and on archive.org I can see that this was there even in 2017. But would need to have availability of the old trac site to be able to look in the wiki edit history to understand where this text came from.

I think I didn't write this.

I think it is not a good thing to write. It should just be removed. At least that one sentence. Just remove it and send the issue submitter a thanks and resolution.

PS; if this is effectively a duplicate, then it should be closed and linked to the #228 instead of holding both tickets open. We advisors need to have ticket workflow functions available here so we can resolve these things.