>>>> 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
>>> measured?)
>>
>> 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".)
>
> Then please use the normal word, to avoid confusion. (01)
That's a good idea. I'll do that. (02)
> BTW, in idiomatic English I think it would be more natural to say that an
>object *has* a
> mass, rather than using 'mass' directly as a property. (03)
"has" is very general property. If this is specified to "hasMass", one in fact
arrives at "mass". (04)
>> What do you mean with the *particular* mass of an object or event? Do
>> you mean the *value* that the quantity may have?
>
> I meant the particular mass, considered as a unique entity; if "the
> mass of my table" is considered to be a referring phrase, then it is
> whatever that phrase refers to. If mass is a property, then this would
> be a trope.
>
> We now have aspects, properties, quantities and values. The vocabulary is
>becoming confusing. (05)
We shouldn't use the word "aspect", as I agree with you. I regret to have used
this word. (06)
> If my table weighs 3 kg, then massOf is a
> property which relates the table to something. I call that thing a
> particular mass, in this case the mass 3kg. (07)
Then you call a measure/magnitude a particular mass. To my opinion that is
confusing. But if it is only a name thing I can live with that. Problem: will
other people understand? (08)
> It in turn is related by another relation (or maybe a function) called
>'kilograms' to the
> (pure) number 3. So, in your terminology, is the 'value' here 3kg, or
> 3? And what is the 'quantity'? (09)
I can't imagine kilogram as a function. I think the value is "3 kg", which is a
measure/magnitude. And the quantity is "mass of my table". (010)
>> (It is important to distinguish the quantity from the measure/magnitude (the
>value) that
>> it may have.)
>
> By 'quantity' here, do you mean the aspect/property? Or are values
> distinct from properties? (011)
Regardless of properties, a quantity is a concept like "the mass of my table",
a reference to a metrological property of my object/event. A value, here, can
be a measure/magnitude, such as "3 kg". How we should model all this, what's a
class, what's a property is in fact a next step. (012)
>> "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.
>
> Can you give an example of a non-metrological property? (013)
If you mean a non-metrological *concept*: something that can be observed. What
about the color of an object? (014)
>>> 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.
>>
>> Is this perhaps the kind of philosophy that we should not be doing?
>
> This is not philosophy, just me trying to understand your intended
> meaning. (015)
OK. (016)
>>>> 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?
>>
>> I only meant to say that with relation to a quantity a statement can
>> be formulated.
>
> Um... OK, but that is so obvious that it does not need saying. I was
> wondering if there was some other, deeper, meaning which you meant to
> imply. (017)
I was trying to emphasize that there are different ways to formulate a
statement about a quantity. One way is fomulating a statement like "the mass of
my table = 3 kg", and another way is specifying the particular mass's value.
Like below. (018)
>>>> 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.)
>>
>> I think both are proper formulations. Both are often used in practice.
>
> If they are both correct, then it follows that the relation called
> 'value' is reflexive. Is this really what people who use the second
> formulation intend? (019)
You mean every element is related to itself? I wouldn't think so; "the mass of
my table" is a quantity, and "3 kg" is a measure/magnitude. It is possible that
a quantity has another quantity as its value, but not necessarily (namely, a
measure/magnitude). (020)
> Pat (021)
Hajo (022)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (023)
|