John Sowa wrote: (01)
> Pat C and Ingvar,
>
> I also agree with what Pat said:
>
> 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.
>
> I'd like to clarify some points that I made in earlier notes:
>
> 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.
>
> 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. (02)
Let me then clarify one point, too. I have been claiming and arguing that
"amount of substance", "dimensionless entities", and "entities of
dimension one" do not serve - despite long established usage - any
important metrological function; rather the contrary. And that, therefore,
they ought to be taken away from the SI system and VIM. What consequences
this view may have for various kinds of computer ontologies I am not able
to tell. It just seemed to me that it ought to have some consequences for
at least some measurement unit ontologies. That's the reason I entered the
discussion. (03)
Ingvar J (04)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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'.
>
> 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.
>
> John Sowa
> (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)
|