John S wrote:
> I am strongly in favor of an approach along the lines
> that Gunther's proposes:
>
> GS> So, you probably need to exclude defining properties from
> > your scope and begin with kind of quantity. But I suggest
> > you even take kind of quantity as a primitive and focus
> > only on dimensions.
>
> The UoM ontology should be compatible with a very wide range
> of incompatible ontologies that people have developed or
> proposed. If we start defining too many upper-level concepts,
> we will end up with one more incompatible ontology. (01)
I think the following classification and definition proposals are
compatible with VIM and the SI system: (02)
1. Divide a primitive 'Dimension' into 'Not-quantified dimension' (shape
would be an example) and 'Quantified dimension' (= what is called just
'dimension' in VIM aand the SI-system). (03)
2. Define 'Quantity' as a quantified dimension with a standard unit. (04)
3. Divide 'Quantity' into 'Kind-of-quantity' and 'Quantity that is not a
kind-of-quantity'; the latter might be called 'Nominal quantity'. (05)
4. Define 'Kind-of-quantity' as a quantity where all the instances of all
the values are in principle physical-chemically comparable. (06)
Best,
Ingvar J (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|