Pat, (01)
I don't want to get into an argument about philosophy, but I would
like to point out that this kind of argument arises in any analysis
of an informal statement during the process of formalization. (02)
PH> 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. (03)
HR> However, a quantity is a metrological aspect of a phenomenon,
> such as "the mass of my table" ("mass" is a metrological aspect (04)
PH> Whoa. Mass is an 'aspect'? Surely not. Mass is, after all,
> one of the fundamental physical quantities.... And in any case,
> why do you consider it to be 'metrological'? (Or does this
> simply mean, capable of being measured?) (05)
This kind of discussion arises in any subject that has not yet been
sufficiently analyzed and codified in a systematic terminology. (06)
Socrates didn't create the confusion, but he had a methodology
for dealing with it: sit down, analyze the subject, and define
the terms. Alternatively, look at a good reference manual that
records the results of experts in the field who have made the
effort to define their terms. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|