The term "dimensional analysis" has been referenced a few times in
these discussions, including this message. I was just wandering what
people mean by this, whether all are on the same page. In my
understanding, dimensional analysis includes such issues like the
invariance of functions (e.g., physical laws) with respect to the
transformations of systems of units. Then comes the so called Pi-
theorem of dimensional analysis, as well as a theory of similarity. If
this is what people are after, then I would be glad to contribute to
this topic since I had done some research in this area in my distant
past. (01)
==Mitch Kokar (02)
On Jul 10, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Evan Wallace wrote: (03)
> With respect to language selection for UoM, Ed wrote:
>
>> (2) Language selection
>> Since we are going to propose a standard ontology, it should be
>> documented in one or more standard languages.
>> Technically, we have at this time only 3 good choices: CLIF,
>> RDF,
>> and OWL. But it should be noted that "OWL" is an umbrella for
>> several
>> languages, one of which (OWL/Full) might be considered the best
>> choice
>> for an appropriate RDF dialect. We need to make choices among
>> these for
>> the normative ontologies.
>> These languages have very different expressive powers. I suggest
>> that we choose one axiomatic form and one (extended) DL form, and
>> do all
>> the formal ontology work in exactly those languages.
>> We also need a non-normative graphical representation, to enable
>> rapid comprehension. The ODM Profile for OWL (using UML tools)
>> suggests
>> itself, but I usually use a more vanilla UML form for presentation of
>> basic concepts. And something adequate that is supported by
>> web-available tooling (like Protegé) is a good alternative.
>> I suggest that we choose a useful graphical form supported by
>> available tools and use it, exclusively, for presentation and
>> discussion
>> in the group. Further, I suggest that we will include non-normative
>> diagrams in this language in the proposed standard, as an aid to
>> reader
>> comprehension.
> I would second the idea of developing the ontology model
> simultaneously in
> an expressive language like IKL and an extended version of OWL DL.
> One form
> of the latter might actually mostly define an extension to OWL per
> [1].
> The goal
> would be to insure support in OWL DL reasoners for the UoM model
> that we
> develop,
> where that support would include dimensional analysis, conversion, and
> appropriate
> interpretation of the results (essentially identity correspondence of
> quantities with
> equivalent quantity values, e.g., 2.54 Centimeters and 1 Inch).
> Whatever we do for
> OWL, it is important that each model make sense on its own, and that
> each makes
> appropriate use of the language (or the language+extension) in which
> it
> is expressed.
>
> -Evan
>
> [1] http://www.webont.org/owled/2008/papers/owled2008eu_submission_34.pdf
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (05)
|