John, et al. (01)
What bothers me about one aspect of this discussion is that it seems to
bring to mind the Russell quote about the advantages of theft over honest
toil. (02)
I do not see how one can draw up the logical axioms and so on, if one does
not know enough about what one is axiomatising.
If a team of people are doing this, then they need a common understanding of
sufficient accuracy. (03)
I do not see how, for this understanding stage, saying that a term is going
to be a primitive helps. It seems to imply one does not need to understand
it - or maybe that everyone understands it unequivocally.
JS> The UoM *must* be compatible with every one of those plus a lot more.
This compatibility is a admirable goal, but I do not see how anyone is going
to reach it without a reasonable understanding of the domain.
Once one (or the team) have the understanding, then one can make these
decisions. (04)
In my experience, from an engineering maturity perspective, conceptual
engineering / ontology is at a pre-Eli Whitney stage. We do not yet have the
tools to make artefacts sufficiently accurately so that they can be re-used
reasonably indiscriminately. Each time we try, we realise this inadequacy
and try to make them more accurate. (05)
One can also take heart from Eli Whitney that one only needs a tool that can
produce something accurate enough for the task - he found a way of getting
the accuracy required without needing a micrometer. (06)
So, if one views the discussions about mass and so on as attempts as
arriving at a common understanding, they are a healthy part of the process.
Some people may find using an upper ontology to help do this useful. I do.
Others may take a different view. I would guess what is important is to find
whatever means one can to arrive at the common understanding. Whether one
uses that in the axioms is an implementation decision. (07)
Regards,
Chris Partridge
Chief Ontologist (08)
Mobile: +44 790 5167263
Phone: +44 20 81331891
Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
BORO Centre Limited
Website: www.BOROCentre.com
Registered in England No: 04418581
Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
Oxfordshire RG9 2AR (010)
This email message is intended for the named recipient(s) only. It may be
privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended named recipient
of this email then you should not copy it or use it for any purpose, nor
disclose its contents to any other person. You should contact BORO Centre
Limited as shown above so that we can take appropriate action at no cost to
yourself. All BORO Centre Limited outgoing E-mails are checked using Anti
Virus software. (011)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:uom-ontology-std-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: 26 September 2009 15:27
> To: edbark@xxxxxxxx; uom-ontology-std
> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>
> Ed and Joe,
>
> The fundamental principle I've been trying to get across is
> that we are *not* defining yet another upper level ontology.
> Those terms have been defined many times before in many
> different upper level ontologies.
>
> If anyone wants to see a definition of them, go look at
> OpenCyc, SUMO, Dolce, BFO, etc. The UoM *must* be compatible
> with every one of those plus a lot more. Therefore, we
> *must* not define those words. For the UoM, they must be
> taken as primitives -- i.e., undefined terms. That allows
> the upper level ontologies to define them according to any
> philosophical principles they choose.
>
> EB> But if we take John's guidance at his word, the following
> > are undefined primitives: Quantity, Kind of Quantity,
> > Quantity Magnitude, Dimension, Unit of Measure. Now, what
> > sort of ontology will we make with those undefined terms?
>
> We would have exactly what a UoM ontology should be: a general
> purpose microtheory that is compatible with a wide range of
> upper-level ontologies.
>
> JC> I think we need to have these three aspects of the meaning
> > of Quantities and Units for meaningful definitions.
>
> If you want a definition, go look at OpenCyc or any of the
> other upper levels. The UoM is not being defined in a vacuum.
> It is *part* of a community of ontology developers.
>
> The VIM document is compatible with every one of the currently
> proposed upper levels and many more that are yet to be invented.
> The UoM ontology *must* be compatible with every one of them.
> Those terms that are primitive for the UoM will have different
> definitions in different upper levels, but that is precisely why
> we must avoid presenting yet another incompatible definition.
>
> EB> Well, John, what precisely is the problem at hand? That
> > is the question Gunther was trying to answer.
>
> Fundamental problem:
>
> Design an ontology for units of measure that support
> interoperability among legacy systems that have no
> ontology and among new systems that are based on
> different upper level ontologies.
>
> The VIM document does that. We should be more formal,
> but at least as compatible as they are.
>
> EB> We don't want a reasoner to use valid mathematics and
> > nonsense physics to produce the proof of a conjecture.
>
> Every engineering project uses approximations because the
> fundamental equations are too difficult to solve efficiently,
> and they frequently use theories such as Newtonian mechanics
> that are known to be wrong.
>
> As I have said many times, the UoM must be compatible with
> an upper ontology based on the latest theories of physics
> and an upper ontology based on 19th century physics. The
> VIM document achieves that balance. So should the UoM.
>
> John
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (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)
|