ravi sharma wrote:
> Ed
> I am glad that the nature of mass is not entering this discussion and we
> are limiting ourselves to objects (things) such as quantity, units,
> measures, and others, as well as algorithmic or rules based conversions
> and other transformations (as a parallel - I am probably seeing these
> akin to metadata). These alone are not trivial as seen by dozens
> of submissions on this topic since yesterday.
>
> SI, VIM, UCUM, and what else (?) ought to be the minimum set of concepts (01)
UCUM contradicts (SI = VIM) because it explicitely drops kind-of-quantity and
uses terms to have a different, non-SI/VIM/BIPM meaning. Furthermore as has
been said both in the teleconf as well as on the list, UCUM doesn't consider
dimensionless things. Per UCUM you can happily always compare an angle to a
count. "Why not. They're both dimensionless. And sometimes it might even make
sense" [Or, in UCUM terms: L/L / 1 ~ 1 <=> L/L ~ 1 <=> L/L and 1 have the
same dimension <=> L/L and 1 differ only by their magnitude [if not equal]
(UCUM 3.§19)] which clearly contradicts what VIM states. (02)
I try not to judge on that here. I'm just pointing out that UoM cannot have
SI&VIM and UCUM as an applied concept at the same time, as they are
contradictory. (03)
-Martin (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|