Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> (...)
> By comparison, Martin Weber said:
>> This is a confusion that should be equivalently confusing modelled! [i.e.
>> keep all the overloaded meanings of the term 'quantity' to stick to
>BIPM-parlese].
>
> I could not disagree more! (But I assume Martin was joking.) Our
> objective is not to capture the terminological problems in the VIM. The
> objective of the ontology is to capture the distinct _concepts_ in the
> VIM (and related references), characterize those concepts, and associate
> them with suitable terms. Where possible, the terms will be those of
> the VIM, or something very close. (01)
Actually I wasn't joking. I'm a CS. A CS is a CS or a CS with humor. (02)
IMO the concept of a quantity (by means of the BIPM) refers to multiple levels
of abstractness trickling down to specific things. (03)
> David Leal added:
>> 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.
>
> What (I hope) David means is "not very nice" is equating the same model
> element with two importantly different concepts: a thing (product) and
> a classification of things (type of product). And no, we don't want to
> make that mistake with "quantity". (...) (04)
Do we want to have three different "length"s though that all refer to
different abstract levels, one being the base quantity of the ISQ SI; one
being all measurable lengths including the equivalent quantities distance,
height and so on; one being specific length of things ? (05)
There is something bitter to bite into at either end and IMO the established
bitter is preferable, isn't it? Adding another set of definitions that then
are satisfying the ontological community but confusing the physicists,
mathematicians (who happily deal with ambiguities like these) and computer
scientists (whose daily bread often is structural recursions like these)... is
that better? The strength of all these standards is their domain of
application, where at latest people from other fields have to get involved.
Confusing them and breaking their language habits isn't particularly helpful
[again IMO]. (06)
Regards, (07)
-Martin (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)
|