[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Ontology Measurement & Evaluation - discussion [Fwd: Re:

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:41:01 -0800
Message-id: <4586FCDD.1020202@xxxxxxxx>
Reminder: NIST-Ontolog-NCOR Mini-Series: Ontology 
Measurement and Evaluation (Session-2) - Thu 21-Dec-2006    (01)

Details at: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2006_12_21    (02)

I've just uploaded the slides.    (03)

The discourse has already begun (I'm forwarding this 
very interesting thread) below ...    (04)

Don't miss the talk ... RSVP to me (offline) if you 
haven't already responded!    (05)

Regards.  =ppy
--    (06)
--- Begin Message ---
To: "'Smith, Barry'" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'peter.yim-cim3.com'" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
From: "Steve Ray" <ray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:00:10 -0500
Message-id: <007101c722bd$98e75810$ad210681@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
        Fascinating slides, and a philosophy with which I heartily agree, in
principle. I do have comments, especially since you head into traditional NIST
territory with your SI discussion.    (01)

1) To my knowledge, 6 of the 7 SI base units are in fact definitional, with the
kilogram being the only one that is based upon an artifact. This last unit, in
fact, will be changing this decade, to one of two definitions - one based upon
the amu (atomic mass unit), basically a particular number of a particular atom;
and the other based on Planck's constant, using the quantum effect manifested in
Josephson junctions to produce a force derived from fundamental constants. So,
while they can all be described as arbitrary, they all (will) have definitions.    (02)

2) While the SI system is tried and true, you will probably be astonished, and
likely horrified with the debates and conclusions being reached just beneath the
surface. I am referring to what is known as the VIM, the International
Vocabulary of Metrology, the third edition of which is just about to be released
(or may have, by now). I have attached the draft. If you have the fortitude, you
will find upon reading it (see the first two attachments) that the center of
debate relates to the notion of whether there is such a thing as the "true
value" as compared to the "measured value". One school of thought (the IEC view)
dismisses the notion of the true value altogether. And here's the horrifying
part: to reach agreement between the two approaches to measurement and
uncertainty (see the third attachment), the international community is agreeing
to a set of terms, at least one of which intentionally has two possible
interpretations, to satisfy either the IEC view, or the GUM view, of
uncertainty. So depending how deep you go, even a "gold standard" reveals
ambiguities.    (03)

3) Finally, your notion of a "perfect" diagnosis implies to me a closed world
view of ontologies, which may not work well with descriptions of the real world.    (04)

At some point, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Herb Simon's treatment of
the "sciences of the artificial" which I believe are very germane to your
approach.    (05)

Thursday's talk will be lots of fun. I'm looking forward to it.    (06)

- Steve    (07)

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Barry [mailto:phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 4:34 PM
To: peter.yim-cim3.com; ray@xxxxxxxx
Subject: slides    (08)

Comments welcome/
BS    (09)

Attachment: wg2_doc_N318_VIM_3rd_edition_2006-08-011.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: VIM_Concept_diagrams_2006_08_08_3.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: 5C-1 Ehrlich_1.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

--- End Message ---

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>