Ingvar, (01)
I sympathize with that position: (02)
IJ> 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. (03)
I was claiming that the words like 'amount' and 'dimension'
should be recognized by the ontology. But combinations of
those words with other words and phrases should also be
examined carefully. (04)
IJ> 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. (05)
I agree. Since the focus of these discussions is to develop
ontologies that will be represented in multiple versions of
logic, a good test should determine what implications any
proposal has on the representations in at least two different
notations for logic. (06)
When I was designing conceptual graphs, my first guideline for
evaluating any feature or construction was to translate it to
English and predicate calculus (sometimes with extensions
beyond FOL). If it didn't have a simple mapping to and from
both, I rejected it. Translating to and from other natural
languages is also important because many of them have features
that are significantly different from English. (07)
John Sowa (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)
|