Chris Partridge wrote:
> John,
>
> We seem to be going around in circles, maybe it is time to call a halt.
>
>
Yes. It is time to stop talking about the philosophy of a
units-of-measure ontology and start talking about an ontology. If there
is a 3-D/4-D problem, we need to see an example of the axiomatic issues. (01)
Otherwise, we are back in one of those endless and fruitless discussions
that are typical of the forum exploder.
I have reached the delete-without-reading stage. (02)
-Ed (03)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (04)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (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)
|