[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-std] retitled: Units of an angle

To: "ingvar_johansson" <ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "uom-ontology-std" <uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:04:01 EST
Message-id: <4a675491.c599.0@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat C and Ingvar,    (01)

I also agree with what Pat said:    (02)

PC> 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.    (03)

I'd like to clarify some points that I made in earlier notes:    (04)

 1. I make a sharp distinction between the words used by the
    practitioners in any field and the metalevel terms used
    to talk about those words.    (05)

 2. I believe that words that have a long established usage
    in any subject (like 'unit' and 'dimension' for UoM) serve
    an important purpose, and they should be recognized and
    represented in an ontology.    (06)

 3. But I also believe that we need to choose a suitable set
    of metalevel terms for talking about any ontology in a
    formal standard.    (07)

 4. Over the centuries, philosophers of every persuasion have
    contributed to a voluminous set of terms, many of which
    have been used in conflicting ways over the centuries.
    Although I have a high regard for that literature, I suggest
    that we avoid using that terminology, if possible.    (08)

 5. My suggestion for the metalevel terminology is to use the
    same words that we use to describe the logical notation
    for defining the ontology.  For example, we can use the
    term 'predicate' or 'relation' instead of 'universal' and
    'instance' instead of 'particular'.    (09)

 6. I also believe it is important to relate the standard
    to the philosophical literature, but I would do that in
    nonnormative citations and comments, not in the normative
    definitions of the standard.    (010)

John Sowa    (011)

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    (012)

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