uom-ontology-std
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [uom-ontology-std] A measure (or magnitude) is not a quantity

To: Hajo Rijgersberg <Hajo.Rijgersberg@xxxxxx>
Cc: uom-ontology-std <uom-ontology-std@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:29:39 -0500
Message-id: <77A112E5-AED0-480D-A201-22BFE1D0D3E5@xxxxxxx>
Hajo, seems to me that this is a good illustration of why ontology  
needs to avoid philosophy :-) Its almost impossible to make a  
philosophical assertion that isn't controversial. For example...    (01)


On Sep 21, 2009, at 4:17 AM, Rijgersberg, Hajo wrote:    (02)

> Dear all,
>
> Please allow me to make a remark about measures (or mangnitudes) and
> quantities. I have seen several times that a measure (or magnitude),
> such as "3 kg", is regarded as a quantity. However, a quantity is a
> metrological aspect of a phenomenon, such as "the mass of my table"
> ("mass" is a metrological aspect    (03)

Whoa. Mass is an 'aspect'? Surely not. Mass is, after all, one of the  
fundamental physical quantities. The particular mass that an object  
has might be considered to be a property of that thing, but mass  
*itself* is surely something beyond that. And in any case, why do you  
consider it to be 'metrological'? (Or does this simply mean, capable  
of being measured?)    (04)

> , "table" is a phenomenon    (05)

A table is a phenomenon? What on earth does that mean? Surely a table  
is an object, if indeed one believes that there are objects at all.  
But to not believe that is quite a stretch for most, er, ontologies.    (06)

> ). There can
> exist a statement about the mass of my table, such as "the mass of my
> table = 3 kg".    (07)

That the *statement* can exist is proved by the fact that you just  
wrote it. Do you mean to say, that such a statement is incorrectly  
phrased, or something like that?    (08)

> What we also often see is that a measure (or magnitude)
> is the value of a quanitty, such as "the mass of my table" --- 
> value--->
> "3 kg".    (09)

So, which is the proper formulation, on your view? (I am genuinely  
confused at this point.)    (010)

Pat    (011)

> A measure (or magnitude) has a numerical value and a reference (a unit
> of measure or a measurement scale).
>
> I mention this only to avoid possible future misunderstandings. I'll
> come back to this issue in later responses on older emails.
>
> Best regards, Hajo
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>    (012)

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (013)






_________________________________________________________________
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    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>