1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 104-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qingping Yang ◽  
C. Butler

1992 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 874-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Daponte ◽  
L. Nigro ◽  
F. Tisato

Measurement ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 207-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Arpaia ◽  
F. Cennamo ◽  
P. Daponte ◽  
M. Savastano

Author(s):  
Priyanka Bharti ◽  
QingPing Yang ◽  
Alistair B. Forbes ◽  
Yacine Koucha

Measurement technology has made an enormous progress in the last decade. With the advent of knowledge representation, various object-oriented models for measurement systems have been developed in the past. Most common limitations of all these models were not incorporating the uncertainty in the measurement process. In this paper, we proposed an object-oriented model depicting the information and knowledge flow in the measurement process, including the measurement uncertainty. The model has three major object classes, namely measurement planning, measurement system and analysis & documentation. These are further classified into sub-classes and relationships amongst them. Attributes and operations are also defined within the classes. This gives a practical and conceptual view of knowledge in the form of object-model for measurement processes. A case study is presented which evaluates the uncertainty of the measurement of a 100 mm gauge block, using both Type A and Type B evaluation methods of the GUM approach.This case study is very similar to the evaluation of calibration uncertainty of CMM. This model can be converted into semantic knowledge representation such as ontology of measurement process domain. Other use of this model is to support the quality engineering in manufacturing industry and research.


1997 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 383-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Daponte ◽  
Domenico Grimaldi ◽  
Libero Nigro ◽  
Francesco Pupo

2012 ◽  
Vol 82 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkatesh Iyengar ◽  
Ibrahim Elmadfa

The food safety security (FSS) concept is perceived as an early warning system for minimizing food safety (FS) breaches, and it functions in conjunction with existing FS measures. Essentially, the function of FS and FSS measures can be visualized in two parts: (i) the FS preventive measures as actions taken at the stem level, and (ii) the FSS interventions as actions taken at the root level, to enhance the impact of the implemented safety steps. In practice, along with FS, FSS also draws its support from (i) legislative directives and regulatory measures for enforcing verifiable, timely, and effective compliance; (ii) measurement systems in place for sustained quality assurance; and (iii) shared responsibility to ensure cohesion among all the stakeholders namely, policy makers, regulators, food producers, processors and distributors, and consumers. However, the functional framework of FSS differs from that of FS by way of: (i) retooling the vulnerable segments of the preventive features of existing FS measures; (ii) fine-tuning response systems to efficiently preempt the FS breaches; (iii) building a long-term nutrient and toxicant surveillance network based on validated measurement systems functioning in real time; (iv) focusing on crisp, clear, and correct communication that resonates among all the stakeholders; and (v) developing inter-disciplinary human resources to meet ever-increasing FS challenges. Important determinants of FSS include: (i) strengthening international dialogue for refining regulatory reforms and addressing emerging risks; (ii) developing innovative and strategic action points for intervention {in addition to Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) procedures]; and (iii) introducing additional science-based tools such as metrology-based measurement systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document