Applying tolerances to the environment and the measurement device

[GitHubDaveSmith]

We would like to be able to apply a tolerance to the probe quality and the environmental temperature. If, for example, the environmental temperature falls outside of a specified range the measurement results might be deemed to be invalid. We are using the elements OtherNonShapeFeatureNominal/Item/Measurement but there is no way to define a nominal value, feature type/subtype and unit type or a measured value.

[TomRKramer]

Hi Dave - The second sentence of this issue appears to have been included inadvertently. It deals with a completely different issue (improving OtherNonShapeFeature). Everything the sentence says looks correct to me. Did you mean to put this into the qif-community issues as a separate issue? For now, I have not included "Improve NonShapeFeature" in the Excel issues list. That reminds me -- did you try the link I sent you in my email last Thursday? https://qifstandards.sharepoint.com/:f:/s/DimensionalMetrologyStandardsConsortiumInc/EmwZ5GdmGO9LkT41_DC9C5kB3y-NH6H5CK9kB-0QqhOotw?e=QMlFKb Tom K

…

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 10:30 AM GitHubDaveSmith ***@***.***> wrote: We would like to be able to apply a tolerance to the probe quality and the environmental temperature. If, for example, the environmental temperature falls outside of a specified range the measurement results might be deemed to be invalid. We are using the elements OtherNonShapeFeatureNominal/Item/Measurement but there is no way to define a nominal value, feature type/subtype and unit type or a measured value. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#21>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACCPPF6DHVSHRCSQAFKCUXLVKJLYDANCNFSM5WBWD7GQ> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[TomRKramer]

The first sentence of this issues raises two issues (1) tolerance for probe quality and (2) tolerance for environmental temperature. The rest of this comment deals with environmental temperature.

Plan - The only way to specify a desired temperature in a plan is to put it into a work instruction in natural language.

MeasurementDevice - Each MeasurementDevice has a max and min operating temperature (but no desired temperature). So a measurement device has a temperature tolerance already.

MeasurementRoom - Each MeasurementRoom has both (1) max and min operating temperature (2) max and min deviation of temperature from desired temperature, i.e., a control tolerance (but no desired temperature).

ActualComponent - Each ActualComponent (in Results) has a Traceability element of ActualProductTraceabilityType. That includes a list of ProductEnvironments measured during inspection. Each Environment (of EnvironmentType) includes an AmbientTemperature that may have combinedUncertainty and meanError.

Results - The Results has an InspectionTraceability element of InspectionTraceabilityType, which includes nothing about temperature.

MeasurementResults - Each MeasurementResults element (in Results) may also have an InspectionTraceability element of InspectionTraceabilityType, which includes nothing about temperature. This would override any InspectionTraceability given with Results, if there is disagreement. The MeasurementResultsType, however, has an ActualComponentIds element giving the ids of the actual components that were measured, so temperature can be tracked that way.

It is not clear what the first sentence of the issue wants changed regarding temperature.

The next QIF version might provide better methods of specifying desired (target) temperatures.

[TomRKramer]

It is not clear what the first sentence of the issue wants changed regarding probe quality. The probes in MeasurementResources already have several measures of quality. For example, SimpleTactileProbeSensor has LinearityError, Repeatability, Sensitivity, and Resolution. What needs to be added?

[TomRKramer]

Hmm. The measures of quality I mentioned a few minutes ago as well as measures of probe shape do not have meanError or combinedUncertainty. Is that what is being asked for?