[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:34:48 -0800
Message-id: <45880698.1090104@xxxxxxxx>
Relaying the following ...   =ppy    (01)

Smith, Barry wrote Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:32:56 -0500:
Here my response to Steve; feel free to redirect.    (02)

At 11:00 AM 12/18/2006, you wrote:
 > Barry,
 >         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.
 > 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.    (03)

I agree with this -- I think, though, that it does not 
affect my argument    (04)

 > 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.    (05)

The bad guys are everywhere. But we can (sometimes) 
make good guy artifacts even out of initiatives which 
are messed up by bad guys.    (06)

 > 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.    (07)

Not my notion at all, in fact -- I was just citing C. 
Friedman (and you are of course right)    (08)

 > 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.    (09)

I have been influenced by Simon's thinking on 
modularity/complexity -- I guess the OBO Foundry idea 
is in keeping therewith.    (010)

Barry    (011)

 > Thursday's talk will be lots of fun. I'm looking 
forward to it.
 > - Steve
 >    (012)

 > -----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
 > Comments welcome/
 > BS    (013)

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    (014)

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