Would it be less confusing if one of those had a parent class of
"Abstract Thing" and the other had a parent class of " Concrete thing"
or "Particular thing" or some such? Because I think you've hit the nail
on the head about what the actual distinction is, and therefore it
should be possible to represent that in the upper ontology. (01)
More broadly, all these distinctions would surely lend themselves to
modeling such that the model, and not the reader's understanding of some
paragraph, is what captures or fixes the meaning? (02)
Mike (03)
Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> Rijgersberg, Hajo wrote:
>
>> 1. Maybe the most important question is (and probably only for my
>information and understanding): why do we base the vocabulary on VIM?
>>
> VIM is the International Vocabulary for Measurement, a publication of
> BIPM -- the people who maintain the international standards for units of
> measure. http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html
> It seemed like adopting their vocabulary would be good, and we have
> tried to stay close to that.
>
>
>> (I'm very interested in studying VIM, but couldn't find the document. Could
>someone please send me a link?) There are also other documents that we could
>base our vocabulary on.
>>
>>
> Yes. For example, we could use the model in DOLCE or Cyc or SUMO or
> some other published upper ontology that provides formal axioms for the
> quantity and measurement concepts. We have a work item that says we
> should look at these.
>
>
>> 2. But then I ignore VIM, and repeat myself: couldn't we have:
>>
>> "length of my table" ---"member of" ---> "length quantity"
>> "length quantity" ---"subclass of" ---> "quantity"
>>
>> This is in accordance with some standard documents I know.
>>
>>
> And it is in accordance with the model that David has produced. But he
> uses "instance of", instead of "member of" ("instance" is an
> "intensional" characterization; "member" is an "extensional"
> characterization; although probably only an ontology purist would care.)
>
>
>>
>> 3. Also, according to these documents, e.g. "1.3 metre" is not a quantity,
>but a measure.
>>
> Agreed. VIM calls it a "quantity value", which is an "expression of the
> magnitude of a quantity". VIM uses "measure" to talk about a process
> for determining a quantity value and for the results of that process.
>
>
>> (A quantity is like a variable, it is a reference to a value, like "1.3
>metre".)
>>
>>
> We are careful to distinguish the class "quantity", whose instances are
> particular quantities, like "the length of your table", from the class
> "quantity magnitude", whose instances are the abstractions -- amounts of
> length stuff. So if you have two chairs next to your table and they are
> identical in size and shape, "the height of the first chair" is a
> (particular) quantity, and "the height of the second chair" is a
> (particular) quantity, and they are _different_ instances of "quantity",
> but they have the same "magnitude". That is, there is one amount of
> 'length' that they both have.
>
> "1.3 metre" is a quantity value, which is an expression/name for a
> "quantity magnitude". If your chairs are 1.3 metres high, then "1.3
> metres" is a name for the magnitude of the height of each chair. And of
> course, the same magnitude can have other names, such as "51 inches".
> "51 inches" and "1.3 metres" are two different quantity values, but they
> express the same "magnitude". That is the model we are proposing.
>
> But then there are two (or more) different classifiers that are called
> "length". length-1 is a subclass of "(particular) quantity". The
> length of your table is a length-1, the height of the second chair is a
> length-1. But the magnitude of the height of the second chair is not a
> length-1. length-2 is a subclass of 'quantity magnitude'. The
> magnitude of the height of the second chair, which is the same as the
> magnitude of the height of the first chair, is a length-2. So we must
> choose one of these to be what we mean by "length". VIM is very clear
> that it means length-1. But then we must not say that "1.3 metres
> expresses a length"; we must say (as VIM does) that "1.3 metres
> expresses the magnitude of a length".
>
> I personally think this usage is confusing for everyone. I would prefer
> that we use "particular quantity" to be the class of things like the
> height of the second chair, and use "quantity" to be what VIM calls the
> "magnitude". But, on the other hand, you can't ever measure a
> "magnitude"; you can only measure a particular quantity -- the height of
> the second chair. The "magnitude" itself is not a physical phenomenon;
> it is an abstraction. So it is very important that we agree on what
> definition we choose for each term we use. Otherwise, everyone is confused.
>
>
>> Again, hopefully this discussion is appreciated; it is meant to be
>constructive, with the aim of working together to achieve a high-quality
>vocabulary.
>>
> Me, too. But we keep going around these same issues, because people
> don't understand the definitions.
>
> -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)
|