Ed, (01)
It is true that the latest and greatest science and technology was
necessary to define the units of measure to the current degree of
precision. However, we must remember that the same words were
used for those units in the 19th century. The values used then
differ from the current values by much less than 1%. (02)
Just remember that Lambert got the value -270 C for absolute zero,
which is off by slightly more than a 1% error. And he did that
in 1779 with *18th century* science and technology. (03)
> So an ontology that defines such a KoQ must necessarily express
> the formulation per the theory that was used by the community
> that expressed it. (04)
The UoM ontology should be little more than a compendium of the
values of the units and the relations among them. The details
of how they were derived is not necessary for using them. (05)
Adding more detail to the UoM ontology will just create conflicts
when engineers try to use the values for different applications
that may use different versions of physics. (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)
|