Ed, (01)
I think we actually agree: (02)
JFS>> 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. (03)
EB> We may be talking past one another here, John. (04)
We both agree that some detail is necessary. But the point I have
been making all along is that the detail necessary hasn't changed
since the 19th century. The same words were used for the UoM,
and the values were known to better than 0.1% of their current
values. (05)
The kinds of explanations that engineers need today are no
different in principle from the kinds they needed in the 19th
century. For many special applications, they certainly need
far more detail, but that detail is not necessary for explaining
what a meter, second, kilogram, ampere, kelvin, and candela *mean*
or how they're related to the other UoM. (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)
|