On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:01 PM, Dave McComb wrote: (01)
> .... (02)
> The other distinction they were calling out "quantity in a general
> sense" seems to me is just the TBox for the particular
> "dimension" (i.e. "length")
>
> The points about being place in order, and grouping seem to refer to
> the "dimension" (we can compare the length of the Themes to the
> distance to the sun because they are both measures of distance (or
> have dimension "length" or even better both have a base unit of
> "meter" which really makes them comparable) (03)
I think this is basically right, but can offer a suggestion as to why
anyone might want to do things their way. There is an intellectual
tradition which is very strong in mathematics to try to reduce the
number of 'basic' concepts, and another, from philosophy, to explain
away more abstract concepts in favor of a rationale based on more
concrete things. If we begin with a distinction between /dimensions/
(length, mass, resistance, etc.) and let me use the neutral term /
amounts/ (4 inches, one AU, 23.6 kg), then the two traditions converge
on the idea of explaining away the more abstract notion in favor the
more concrete one, dimensions in terms of amounts. And there is an
elegant way to to do this, which is to use the notion of comparability
between amounts (A is some multiple of B) and then *define* a
dimension as an equivalence class of amounts under the equivalence of
comparability. This effectively reduces the number of basic concepts
from two to one and keeps the more concrete, operational concept as
basic. (04)
However, I would suggest that neither of these two traditions should
be taken overly seriously for ontology work, and that clarity and
simplicity should take precedence over conceptual reduction and
concreteness. The notion of dimension is too useful to have it
eliminated by a mathematical trick, even if that elimination does have
some philosophical and mathematical appeal. (05)
Pat Hayes (06)
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-
>> std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Leal
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 11:11 AM
>> To: uom-ontology-std
>> Subject: [uom-ontology-std] VIM definitions
>>
>> Dear Geoffrey,
>>
>> I think that this is well worth discussing with the metrology
>> experts.
>>
>> Two meanings of "quantity"?
>> ---------------------------
>> The reference
>> http://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=111-11-
>> 01
>> has the following note to the definition of (physical) quantity:
>>
>> NOTE 1 - The term quantity may refer to a quantity in a general sense
>> (examples: length, time, mass, temperature, electrical resistance,
>> amount-of-substance concentration) or to a particular quantity
>> (examples:
>> length of a given rod, electrical resistance of a given specimen of
>> wire,
>> amount-of-substance concentration of ethanol C2H5OH in a given sample
>> of wine).
>>
>> This note, which is not present in the VIM, may be crucial. Does it
>> mean
>> that there are two meanings of quantity:
>> - quantity in a general sense: The following are different objects of
>> type
>> "quantity in a general sense" - length, time (duration), mass.
>> - particular quantity: The following are different objects of type
>> "particular quantity" (and of type length) - the metre, the
>> astronomical
>> unit, the width of the Thames at London Bridge.
>>
>> If this is the case, then the term "quantity" is used in either sense
>> according to context. We have:
>>
>> NOTE 2 - Quantities that can be placed in order of magnitude relative
>> to one
>> another are called quantities of the same kind.
>>
>> In this note "quantity" means "particular quantity". The metre, the
>> astronomical unit and the width of the Thames at London Bridge are
>> "particular quantities" that can be placed in order of magnitude.
>>
>> NOTE 3 - Quantities of the same kind may be grouped together into
>> categories
>> of quantities, for example:
>> - work, heat, energy
>> - thickness, circumference, wavelength
>>
>> In this note "quantity" means "quantity in a general sense". Work,
>> heat
>> and
>> energy are "quantities in a general sense" that can be grouped
>> together.
>>
>> Clarification
>> -------------
>> It would be good to confirmation that this is the intent of the VIM
>> and
>> the
>> International Electrotechnical Vocabulary.
>>
>> It would also be good to have confirmation that the terms "quantity
>> in
>> a
>> general sense" and "particular quantity" are correct. If they are,
>> perhaps
>> they should be added to the vocabulary.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> David
>>
>> p.s. The use of one term for objects at two different meta-levels is
>> familiar to those working with ISO 10303. In ISO 10303-41, the entity
>> type
>> *product* is defined as follows: "A *product* represents a product
>> or a
>> type
>> of product." (This is not a tautology - the entity type *product* is
>> defined
>> using the defined term "product".)
>>
>> Ontologically this is not very nice, and as ISO 10303 evolves towards
>> being
>> an ontology, it will be good to separate out the two uses.
>>
>> At 15:35 14/07/2009 +0100, you wrote:
>>> David Leal says
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> <Aside>
>>> Evan uses the term "quantity value" which is defined within the
>>> VIM. I
>> have
>>> read the definition many times: "number and reference together
>> expressing
>>> magnitude of a quantity". I think that this phrase should be read as
>> follows:
>>>
>>> number_and_reference_together - expressing_magnitude_of - a_quantity
>>>
>>> but it could be read as:
>>>
>>> number_and_reference_together - expressing - magnitude_of_a_quantity
>>>
>>> Hence is the thing identified by (or "expressed by") 2.54 cm a
>> "quantity" or
>>> a "magnitude_of_a_quantity"? Somebody must know, or is there a
>> deliberate
>>> ambiguity. :)
>>> </Aside> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [GW] Nobody seems to have picked this comment up. I am concerned
>> that
>> there is a misunderstanding here. My understanding of the VIM
>> definition of
>> _quantity_value_ is based on the following:
>>>
>>> _Quantity_ is defined by 1.1 of VIM (JCGM 200:2008 = ISO/IEC Guide
>> 99:2007)
>> http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html
>>>
>>> See also definition of (physical) quantity in Electropedia
>> (http://www.electropedia.org ) section 111.11.01
>>> Electropedia is an online searchable database version of the
>> International
>> Electrotechnical Vocabulary, IEC 60050
>>>
>>> Definition 1.19 of VIM (JCGM 200:2008 = ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007)
>>> defines
>> _quantity _value_ (or _value_of_quantity or _value_) and I am certain
>> in my
>> own mind that the term means "magnitude_of_a_quantity" not "quantity"
>>>
>>> In David's example the quantity is a length and the magnitude is
>>> 2.54
>> cm ie
>> expressed as a number and reference (unit).
>>>
>>> I can seek clarification of this interpretation from JCGM/WG 2 if
>>> this
>> is a
>> contentious issue
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Geoffrey Williams
>>> Programme Manager,
>>> Business Process Improvement Standards
>>> Standards Operations
>>>
>>> _____________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> BSI, 389 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 4AL, UK
>>> Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 7411
>>> Fax: +44(0)20 8996 7249
>>> email: geoff.williams@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Web: www.bsigroup.com
>>>
>>>
>>> P Please consider the environment before printing this email
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David
>> Leal
>>> Sent: 10 July 2009 22:20
>>> To: uom-ontology-std
>>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] UoM ontology standard - a proposed
>> program
>> ofwork
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I strongly support Ed's proposed approach, and especially his
>> reference to
>>> the VIM:
>>>
>>>> We should extract the UoM parts of these ontologies into a
>>>> repository and look at them side-by-side. (The basic VIM concept
>>>> set
>> is
>>>> only a dozen concepts or so. It should not be necessary to include
>> all
>>>> the infrastructure on which the UoM part is built -- the idea
>>>> here is
>> to
>>>> identify the UoM concepts that are captured.)
>>>
>>> The need to produce a set of UoM concepts that is both a formal
>> ontology and
>>> related to the VIM concepts is important. It give us a chance of
>> creating
>>> "the ontology for units of measure" rather than "yet another
>>> ontology
>> for
>>> units of measure". The work also has a possibility of adding clarity
>> to the
>> VIM.
>>>
>>> <Aside>
>>> Evan uses the term "quantity value" which is defined within the
>>> VIM. I
>> have
>>> read the definition many times: "number and reference together
>> expressing
>>> magnitude of a quantity". I think that this phrase should be read as
>> follows:
>>>
>>> number_and_reference_together - expressing_magnitude_of - a_quantity
>>>
>>> but it could be read as:
>>>
>>> number_and_reference_together - expressing - magnitude_of_a_quantity
>>>
>>> Hence is the thing identified by (or "expressed by") 2.54 cm a
>> "quantity" or
>>> a "magnitude_of_a_quantity"? Somebody must know, or is there a
>> deliberate
>>> ambiguity. :)
>>> </Aside>
>>>
>>> I would like to volunteer for a role in the ontology formulation as
>>> suggested in Ed's proposal. It would fit well with my the work
>>> within
>> the
>>> CEN ELSSI Workshop, which is creating an ontology derived from ISO
>> material
>>> test data standards for the formal definition of material test
>> procedures
>>> and for the formal representation material test data.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> David
>>>
>>> At 15:15 10/07/2009 -0400, you wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>> ============================================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>> ====================================================================
>>>
>>> Visit the BSI website at www.bsigroup.com
>>>
>>> This email may contain confidential information and/or copyright
>>> material. This email is intended for the use of the addressee only.
>>> Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email
>>> by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the
>>> reply facility in your email software.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your cooperation.
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> __
>>> This e-mail has been scanned for all known viruses.
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>> ============================================================
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> (07)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|