Pat, (01)
I strongly endorse that sentiment: (02)
PH> ... 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. (03)
Units of measure are so important that they will need to be used
in many different ontologies, which may have very different
basic axioms. For such reasons, underspecification is the best
strategy: leave the term 'dimension' as an undefined primitive,
which different ontologies might relate to their own primitives
as required. (04)
As I've said many times, I strongly recommend leaving the upper
levels as underspecified as we can get away with. Then let the
microtheories add axioms if and when they need them. (05)
It's like the chili principle: (06)
"Whenever you find that your latest batch of chili is much
better than usual, it's probably because of something you
forgot to add, rather than something new that you did add." (07)
John (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)
|