Gunther and Martin, (01)
Any application of the UoM ontology (for either computers or people)
will require a great deal of additional information about the specific
problem and about general issues dealt with in physics and other
sciences. Axioms for them do not belong in an ontology for UoM. (02)
JFS>> People have been successfully using units of measure for centuries
>> without having formal definitions and axioms. (03)
MSW> People, yeah. Computers have a nice history of catastrophes. (04)
Your example omitted crucial information that is equally important
for both people and computers. (05)
MSW> She received calls from other people who failed to say whether
> the 10 by 20 was in feet or yards and width by length or length
> by width. (06)
MSW> Ergo, kind of quantity is a must. (07)
My recommendation stands: VIM has proved to be useful for a wide
range of applications. Any term that is not defined in VIM, is
one that would be defined in either an upper level ontology or a
problem-dependent ontology. That is where the computer would get
whatever details it requires. (08)
Any duplication in the UoM is either redundant or worse -- it may
be inconsistent with the other sources. (09)
GS> ... it may well be that your detailed analysis finds some
> inconsistencies and ambiguities with the VIM that would be
> worthwhile to feed back and improve the VIM. (010)
Yes, of course. But that point is independent of the question
of what terms we should define in the UoM ontology. (011)
John Sowa (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|