Re: [ontology-based-standards] small follow-up on RE: "Ontology-based St

[<Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx>]

Maybe. But it also depends on the size of the pipe and the rate of flow.

 

The reason that crocodiles are interesting is

(a)     In this context they are not fundamentally different to any other kind of suspended particle.

(b)    They are a real water quality indicator, both in terms of the capacity of a water body to support life, and the capacity of the water body to support recreation!

(c)     They are memorable!

 

It seems that Torsten and Boyan are suggesting there is a fundamental distinction between dissolved and suspended contaminants, but I’m not sure there is a firm line. When I did physical chemistry there was a continuum from solution-suspension-emulsion-colloid, but in the case of suspension I’m not sure if there is a critical particle size – look at the movies from the Fukushima tsunami to see how very large objects can be part of the flow.

 

You also appear to be accepting that hydrodynamics is the use-case under discussion. There are other cases in which water contaminants play a role.

 

Simon

 

From: ontology-based-standards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-based-standards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Shkotin
Sent: Friday, 18 October 2013 6:54 PM
To: ontology-based-standards
Subject: Re: [ontology-based-standards] small follow-up on RE: "Ontology-based Standards" mini-series session-5 - Ontologies for Geospatial Standards - Thu 2013.10.17

 

Simon,

 

I think it's just more simple: Torsen gave us elements of hydrology theory (formal one;-) abstracted from bio-objects.

Suppose this theory can predict flood movement and other hydrology processes.

But where crocodiles? They are neglected. Abstraction.

They do not impact to hydrological processes of interest. Do they?

Ask hydrologists:-)

I think they have an amendment to the coefficient of viscosity of the water in this case;-)

 

Alex

 

2013/10/18 <Simon.Cox@xxxxxxxx>

Re the discussion about water/crocodiles/water bodies etc:

This issue is partly accommodated by the O&M model, where the 'feature-of-interest' (e.g. a specific water body) is distinguished from the 'observed-property' (concentration of crocodiles) (and also from the procedure or sensor).
This in turn is a corollary of the underlying 'feature model' which, like pretty much all of the meta-models we are using including OWL, distinguishes between classes/objects and properties/property-values.

There is an issue that many vocabularies of 'observed properties' conflate these concerns, so in standard water property vocabularies we see entries like:
   'concentration of crocodiles in a water body measured using a fooglemeter averaged over 3-day intervals and expressed as a number scaled by the unit-of-measure "bites"'.

But the analysis is established in O&M since many years now.

Simon

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-based-standards/
Subscribe: mailto:ontology-based-standards-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-based-standards/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologyBasedStandards/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyBasedStandards

 

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-based-standards/  
Subscribe: mailto:ontology-based-standards-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Config/Unsubscribe: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-based-standards/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologyBasedStandards/  
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologyBasedStandards        (01)