Ed, (01)
I certainly agree with that point: (02)
EB> It is time to stop talking about the philosophy of a units-
> of-measure ontology and start talking about an ontology. (03)
My major reason for talking about philosophy was to prune down
the UoM ontology to the barest minimum needed for a neutral
foundation that could support a wide range of applications. (04)
Following are the recommendations I presented: (05)
>> 1. Whatever system of ontology we propose should support multiple
>> "microtheories" or whatever else one would like to call them.
>>
>> 2. Some of those microtheories might assume good old Newtonian
>> mechanics, others might use relativity, others might use a
>> nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, and others might use the
>> latest and greatest theories anybody has proposed.
>>
>> 3. But all of them can use the same words and values for the
>> basic units of measure.
>>
>> 4. Those points imply that a microtheory for units of measure
>> should *not* contain detailed axioms and definitions of the
>> underlying physical principles and theories.
>>
>> 5. The detailed axioms and definitions should be contained in
>> microtheories for whatever physical theories are assumed for
>> any particular application. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|