Dear Hajo, (01)
I agree with the need to converge on a high-quality vocabulary. Until now we
have been attempting to define the concepts and to relate them to the
vocabulary of the VIM. This is a necessary first step, but once we are clear
about the concepts we can suggest alternatives to the vocabulary of the VIM
which are more in line with the usual approach in ontologies. (02)
The four quantity concepts proposed by Ed
(http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard#nid20L3) seem
to be where we have got to. With respect to these four quantity concepts,
and their VIM derived names, we have: (03)
"length of my table" ---"member of" ---> Q1 ("particular quantity")
"length of my table" ---"member of" ---> "length as a class of particular
quantity"
"length of my table" ---"member of" ---> "1.3 metres" (04)
"length as a class of particular quantity" ---"member of" ---> Q2 ("kind of
quantity - as class of particular quantity")
"length as a class of particular quantity" ---"subclass of" ---> Q1
("particular quantity") (05)
"1.3 metres" ---"member of"---> Q3 ("magnitude of quantity")
"1.3 metres" ---"member of"---> "length as a class of magnitude"
"1.3 metres" ---"subclass of---> Q1 ("particular quantity")
"1.3 metres" ---"subclass of---> "length as a class of particular quantity"
"1.3 metres" ---"expressed by---> ("1.3, "metre") (06)
"length as a class of magnitude" ---"member of" ---> Q4 ("kind of quantity -
as class of magnitude")
"length as a class of magnitude" ---"subclass of" ---> Q3 ("magnitude of
quantity")
"length as a class of magnitude" ---"subclass of" ---> ---"powerclass
of"---> "length as a class of particular quantity" (07)
("1.3", "metre") ---"member of"---> "quantity value" (08)
Alas this is quite complicated with four different meta-levels. Your
proposal is a useful subset of this. There are probably other useful
subsets, which may be why past discussions have failed to reach consensus. (09)
Best regards,
David (010)
At 12:41 04/09/2009 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Please allow me to make a remark about quantity kinds. Hopefully this
>discussion is appreciated; it is solely meant to be constructive, with
>the aim of working together to achieve a high-quality vocabulary.
>
>Let me get to the point. I think we should not define a separate class
>"quantity kind". "Kind" is an implicit part of the ontology language;
>classes are meant to model "kinds". We should not deviate from this
>principle, but exploit it.
>
>So not, for example:
>
>"length of my table" ---"has quantity kind"---> "length"
>"length of my table" ---"is a"---> "quantity"
>"length" ---"is a"---> "quantity kind"
>
>but:
>
>"length of my table" ---"is a"---> "length (quantity)"
>"length (quantity)" ---"is a"---> "quantity"
>
>Best regards, Hajo Rijgersberg (011)
============================================================
David Leal
CAESAR Systems Limited
registered office: 29 Somertrees Avenue, Lee, London SE12 0BS
registered in England no. 2422371
tel: +44 (0)20 8857 1095
mob: +44 (0)77 0702 6926
e-mail: david.leal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
web site: http://www.caesarsystems.co.uk
============================================================ (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|