John Graybeal wrote: (01)
> 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. (02)
Dave McComb wrote: (03)
> I could get started with level 0. I must admit though every use
> case I can think of involves a unit and a value. (04)
I would say that it is logically impossible to have a unit without a
value. To have the value 1 is also to have a value. On the other hand, a
value without a unit is just a pure mathematical number. I think
Graybeal's distinction should be replaced by the following:
0) Base units
1) Values of base units. (05)
The value of the base unit is created by a pragmatic choice. It is not to
be found in mind-independent nature, and it is not necessarily 1. (06)
Best, Ingvar J (07)
--
home page: http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html (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)
|