Patrick Cassidy wrote: (01)
> I would like to pursue the issue of the unit of measure of an angle, since
> it also relates to other "ratio'-like quantities that may be used as
> measures. The gist of this note is that I would not like the 'dimension'
> of
> an angle to be considered as null, or 1, or dimensionless, but as
> something
> that means 'angular measure'. For an ontology that is intended to
> represent
> meanings, I am very leery of oversimplifications that work fine in
> restricted contexts but may prove confusing in missed contexts.
>
> The last note from Ingvar Johansson had this portion of a discussion: (02)
I would just like to add that I agree with everything that PC says below. (03)
Ingvar J (04)
> [John Sowa] > > I also like that analysis. But it has to be extended to
> angles,
>> > since we have to support multiple functions that map angles to
>> > numbers: degree and radian.
>>
> [IJ] > I agree, and in a sense so do also the metrologists that (as I said
> in
>> an earlier mail) I criticize. In my opinion, one should say that radian
>> is
>> a unit of the derived dimension length/length, but the SI system and VIM
>> says that it is a dimensionless unit or a unit of dimension-one.
>> However, everyone agrees that angles can be measured by (or mapped on)
> scales
>> whose magnitudes are 'x degree' or 'x radian'.
>>
>> I think, by the way, that it is misleading to say that "angles are
>> mapped to numbers"; angles are mapped to magnitudes of a scale.
>>
> Although an angle in radians can be expressed as a ratio of linear
> measures, the linear measures themselves do not measure arbitrary straight
> lines, but are quite specific regions of some imaginary circle. I think
> it
> is a misleading oversimplification, when taking ratios of things that are
> not themselves pure numbers, to ignore the meanings of the measures that
> are
> being divided. A similar issue has arisen in the past about how to
> express
> things like "weight percent" which, if one ignores the objects that are
> represented by the numerator and denominator, can appear to be a
> dimensionless number (grams/grams). Such ratios have an actual conceptual
> "dimension" though the SI and VIM committees may have found it possible to
> ignore the meanings in the case of radians, knowing that the dimensions
> will
> likely be interpreted properly in applications. One way to recognize the
> problem is to note that if one wants to represent a weight ratio, it is
> possible to use micrograms per gram or grams per gram, and the
> "dimensions"
> will appear to cancel out in either case, leaving a "dimensionless"
> number,
> though the resulting numbers differ greatly depending on what units are
> chosen for the numerator.
> I would suggest that we promiscuously include all quantifiable "units"
> that carry meaning in any application, and not take as "dimensionless" any
> measures that are in fact distinguishable in their intended meaning. A
> weight ratio does *not* have the same dimension as an angle, though one
> can
> oversimplify either to some dimensionless number.
>
> In this view, a 'radian' is a unit of measure, as is a
> 'degree-of-angle',
> and if the dimension is represented separately from the unit of measure,
> the
> dimension in either case would be 'angular measure'. The dimension of a
> weight ratio is the ordered pair of objects or types of objects whose
> weights are being divided (weight ratios might better be treated in a
> different way, but if they were treated as measures with a unit, that
> would
> be my preference for the unit).
>
> It may be possible to consider certain ratios as the 'base unit' as in
> the case of a radian, where the subtended arc length and radius are the
> defining measures being divided. In the case of weight ratio,
> grams-of-X/grams-of-Y might be the base unit for each X/Y pair. Measures
> that are related to other ratio measures by some constant number, such as
> angle degrees or micrograms/gram, would then be related to the base unit
> as
> "prefix"-unit is to other base units, where "prefix" may be micro, kilo,
> etc. or a special non-SI prefix.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA, Inc.
> 908-561-3416
> cell: 908-565-4053
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|