I don't know what you mean by "the world of metrology," but what I wrote is correct. You and some other people have agreed contractually to use certain definitions but I haven't, nor has anyone I've ever worked with.
ISO 9001:2015 Calibration Records
- Thread starter East Dakota 66
- Start date
Randy
Super Moderator
But how far does your world extend? Do you work beyond the borders of your state? There's a lot of world out there.
Even the phrase "Opportunity for Improvement" isn't universal..........Nor is the word "should".
"Some other people" and I comprise an entire Metrology industry. Like any other professional organization we have an accepted vocabulary so that we have a better understanding on what is being discussed, trying to limit misinterpretation.
Like the misinterpretations being discussed in this post.
You can hunt through as many dictionaries as you like until you find a definition that fits your feelings, but that will not make you correct or anyone else who chooses to make up their own definitions.
Randy
Super Moderator
Yep, entirely correct..........I believe it was the Compton PD that came to the realization that the phrase "cover us" is entirely different in their vernacular that it is to a squad of US Marines...Lesson learned May 1992. Every can profession have different definitions and uses for commonly understood words and phrases, that's why it's imperative for people like me to ask "What do you mean, or how do you use that"..........Something that one learns when working in "the world".
So should we use the Glossary from ISO (see below) when looking at ISO 9000 related terminology or go to Dictionary.com, or dig out the old copy of Websters I've had since junior high school?
Do I need to get two or more parties to agree to using this glossary?
Welcome to The Cove!
Tolerances are usually based on the things the instruments measure and their requirements specified by the customer and the cost of getting it wrong, as well as the instruments' capability - discrimination, accuracy, precision and range all contribute to the choice. If a caliper measures in .001 increments and the drawing tolerance for a feature the calipers measure is +/- .020, it is possible that a calibration tolerance of .002 would be decided to be acceptable. Being on the cautious side, I would favor a .001 tolerance though.
I hope this makes sense.
"provides the appropriate meaning of selected words found in dictionaries for the context in which they are used in ISO 9000:2015 and ISO 9001:2015."
You won't find that in any dictionary.
Your point is still waiting to be made.
So, what are really debating? It seems the thread has veered from the OP’s original question to the ‘definition’ of verified vs. calibrated?
I believe that we have established that recording the traceable gage set number is not required by the ISO standard to be recorded on every calibration even though it might be best practice?
And we are debating what the meaning of calibration vs verification is in ISO9000:2015?
I believe that we have established that recording the traceable gage set number is not required by the ISO standard to be recorded on every calibration even though it might be best practice?
And we are debating what the meaning of calibration vs verification is in ISO9000:2015?
Do you not understand the phrase "...for the context in which they are used..."? What this is telling us is that there are words used in the context of the ISO standards that have specialized meanings, meanings different from standard dictionary denotations. In its simplest sense, "calibration" is the act of comparing a measurement device to a standard. What the quoted bit is saying, in essence, is that ISO definitions might go beyond that simple dictionary denotation. If one desires to be in congruence with the ISO standard(s) in question, one must agree to the expanded or eccentric definitions. No one is bound to any definitions that they haven't at least tacitly agreed to.