Yeah that's what I'm hoping for too. (01)
I could get started with level 0. I must admit though every use case I can
think of involves a unit and a value. (02)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-
> std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Graybeal
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 3:54 PM
> To: uom-ontology-std
> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] retitled: magnitude of a quantity
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Dave McComb wrote:
>
> > Well stated. I think it's key to layer these ontologies. If I
> > could restate and add one, starting from the lowest working up, I
> > think we need:
> >
> > 1) Values with Units (this is the very basic ontology that just
> > allows us to say "3 meters")
> > 2) The measurement event (this just adds the temporal dimension, and
> > recognizes that there is an event for the measurement)
> > 3) The measurement method
> > 4) The thing being measured
> >
> > Each can be underspecified at the lower level (i.e. I could have a
> > measurement event at level 2 and say it's measuring "blood
> > pressure" (a literal) without having a complete ontology about what
> > blood pressure is (at level 4)
> >
> > And as I think you were suggesting to make progress let's focus on
> > level 1
>
> ooh yeah :->. For separation of concerns (and my personal time
> investment required), I'd really love it if all the emails on this
> thread focused on level 1. Because values with units apply to
> measurements, and also models and descriptions, and can be easily
> referenced with no concern for the other 3 contexts.
>
> In fact, I'm not even sure how values got to join in with units. I
> would have said
> 0) Units
> 1) Values with Units
> because just having units sorted out by themselves -- with URIs for
> each concept -- enables all sorts of effective tools and toys.
>
> I'm hoping this project becomes not a "theory of everything related to
> units" but just "a usefully tight and complete ontology of units".
> Not as much fun maybe, and not as useful for some purposes, but it
> seems to me a first step in any case. And very useful in itself.
>
> John
>
> --------------
> John Graybeal <mailto:graybeal@xxxxxxxxx> -- 831-775-1956
> Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
> Marine Metadata Interoperability Project: http://marinemetadata.org
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|