Dear Pat, (01)
Thanks for your mesaages. (02)
> 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... (03)
When one practices ontology, one is automatically practicing philosophy.
And we should keep on doing that, in order to obtain ontologies of
higher quality in the future. Of course, in favour of pragmatism, it may
sometimes be good not to get stuck in philosophical considerations, and
build an ontology.
Probably we should do both (which, I think, we do). (04)
>> 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
>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
Yes, mass is one of the fundamental physical quantities. But is also a
metrological property of an object or an event at the same time. (With
"aspect", I meant "property".)
What do you mean with the *particular* mass of an object or event? Do
you mean the *value* that the quantity may have? (It is important to
distinguish the quantity from the measure/magnitude (the value) that it
"Metrological" is an important property of the kind of concepts that we
are talking about. Indeed, it means capable of being measured or
something like that. (06)
> 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. (07)
Is this perhaps the kind of philosophy that we should not be doing? (By
the way, with the term "phenomenon" I was hoping to cover both "object"
and "event", but I would be happy to use any other term.) (08)
>> ). There can exist a statement about the mass of my table, such as
"the mass of my table = 3 kg".
>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? (09)
I only meant to say that with relation to a quantity a statement can be
>> 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".
>So, which is the proper formulation, on your view? (I am genuinely
confused at this point.) (011)
I think both are proper formulations. Both are often used in practice. (012)
Best regards, Hajo (013)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/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)