uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-std] retitled: magnitude of a quantity

To: "uom-ontology-std" <uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "ingvar_johansson" <ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:13:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-id: <59737.83.254.147.78.1247994838.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>