Martin, (01)
People have been successfully using units of measure for centuries
without having formal definitions and axioms. (02)
MSW> If you do not have a proper representation of "kind of quantity"
> (per VIM) then you'll never know if two things are comparable. In
> the light of UCUM this might be acceptable, but in the light of a
> units of measure standard *ontology* I don't see how this can ever
> be left out. (03)
There are already too many detailed and incompatible upper level
ontologies. There is a simple way to be compatible with each of them: (04)
1. Don't attempt to define any term that VIM doesn't define.
If you want to use it, take it as an undefined primitive. (05)
2. If VIM does define some term that is needed for UoM, then
restate the VIM definition in whatever version of logic
we use, but don't add more detail. (06)
Let the upper level gang do whatever they want to do at the
upper levels, but don't attempt to define anything that they
are already defining. (07)
John Sowa (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)
|