Dear Pat, (01)
>Hmm. Maybe Im being naive here, but I don't see why area 0 should be
>all that difficult to ontologize. In fact, it seems pretty
>straightforward. Getting wide agreement on a single such ontology
>might be hard going on impossible, but actually creating a reasonably
>complete ontology seems manageable. (02)
May be it is not that difficult - it is just that it is important. (A
nuclear reactor pressure vessel may be simpler than a conventional steam
drum, but you spend much more time worrying about it.) (03)
Wide agreement is not needed - we just need agreement with the ISO TC12
people who write the standards on which the ontology will be based. My
feeling is that the amount of ontological committment within the basic
metrology standards is small, so that the part of the ontology they will
want to comment on is small. The rest of the ontology will be our use of
their standard, and they won't care so much. (04)
We do not know is exactly where the dividing line is, and due dilligence
requires that we find out. (05)
Best regards,
David (06)
At 08:54 14/05/2009 -0500, you wrote:
>On May 14, 2009, at 4:31 AM, David Leal wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> There are several different areas related to units, which include:
>>
>> 0) A framework ontology covering:
>> - generic concepts such as: quantity, "quantities of the same kind",
>> unit,
>> scale;
>> - basic scientific quantities, such as mass, length, time-duration,
>> energy;
>> - SI units for the basic scientific quantities.
>>
>
>> 1) The many thousands of different units for basic scientific
>> quantities
>> which are used in different parts of engineering and business, such as
>> furlong, hectare, BTU, US survey foot. There are also measures for
>> "amount
>> of stuff", such as bolt of cloth, which are specific to particular
>> industries.
>>
>> 2) "Difficult quantities/properties" such as those in materials
>> science -
>> tensile strengths, hardnesses, etc. The result of a high precision
>> temperature measurement is also a "difficult quantity/property",
>> because it
>> is measured according to ITS90.
>>
>> 3) Properties at a particular state, such as "dynamic viscosity at 20
>> degrees C". Here the quantity is simple, but the value is for a
>> state which
>> the fluid is not necessarily in.
>>
>> There is a pressing need to solve business requirements in area (1)
>> now!
>> Fortunately this area is straightforward, and does not rely
>> crucially on
>> area (0) which is difficult.
>
>Hmm. Maybe Im being naive here, but I don't see why area 0 should be
>all that difficult to ontologize. In fact, it seems pretty
>straightforward. Getting wide agreement on a single such ontology
>might be hard going on impossible, but actually creating a reasonably
>complete ontology seems manageable.
>
>Pat Hayes
>
>
> (07)
============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
registered in England no. 2422371
tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================ (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2009/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (09)
|