Ed, (01)
That is exactly how I see it. I want to be sure that at the level of
some upper ontology, the concepts of "Amount" and "Quantity" are not
prematurely locked into amounts, quantities etc. of physical
measurement. What we have on TC68 and what is in the world of physical
measurement would both specialise those very general concepts. (02)
Mike (03)
Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> David Leal wrote:
>
>> Dear Mike,
>>
>> I do not think that euro, dollar, yen, etc. should be within scope, any more
>> than "6 inch wire nail", "10 X 150 galvanised coach bolt", etc..
>>
>>
> For the record, I agree with David that Currency is out of scope for a
> UoM ontology. I leave 'currency ontology' to the ISO TC68 folk, because
> the meaning of currency units and the mechanisms of definition involve
> concepts and disciplines entirely unrelated to UoM.
>
> Of course, for the 'universal upper ontology' folk, I am sure there are
> common supertypes and patterns. I believe that Currency could derive
> from a common 'quantities' model at some level, but not from a
> system-of-units model. That is, a currency unit might well be a
> 'reference quantity', but it is not a requirement that it satisfy
> whatever axioms we assign to 'measurement unit'.
>
> -Ed
>
> (04)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (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)
|