I wrote: (01)
>> The VIM begins with the idea that there such physical properties as the
>> length of a given stick. This is the philosophical concept "property":
>> something intrinsic in the individual stick. (02)
Pat H wrote:
> Careful. Im not sure that the VIM requires tropes. The phrase "length of
> a given stick" can be understood as referring to a trope - in which
> case, the length of a given stick A is *never* the same as the length of
> another stick B, even when they are the same length - or it can be taken
> to refer to a property in the normal sense, the way I was suggesting -
> in which case, to say that A and B have the same length, you simply
> equate their particular lengths. I vote for the second. (03)
We can choose the model we find most likely to be useful, and I have no
problem with Pat's choice. (04)
The point I was making is that we may not want the exact model that I
see in the VIM. I was addressing Pat C's comment directly: (05)
> The more substantive issue is whether we want to have a class
> representing
> the specific instances of quantitative properties (length of a
> particular
> stick, temperature of a particular room at some particular time, etc.),
> inasmuch as (even though they are logically distinguishable entities -
> called 'tropes' in some treatments), I have never been able to find a
> way to use them to good effect. (06)
It is my impression that the VIM 'particular quantity' _is_ a 'trope'.
The particular quantity that is "the length of stick A" is different
from the particular quantity that is "the length of stick B", even when
their 'magnitudes' are equal. The 'magnitude' is an equivalence class
of particular quantities, and that seems to be the more useful concept,
as Pat H suggests. (07)
-Ed (08)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (09)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|