Chris, (01)
I certainly agree with that point: (02)
CP> 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)
We must design a UoM ontology that is compatible with the best
understanding of science that we and our colleagues can bring
to bear on the subject. But that certainly does *not* mean
that we should encode everything we know in our axioms. (04)
Just look at the VIM document. That was developed and reviewed
by large numbers of experts in the various fields that use
units of measure. It would have been a terrible mistake if
they had made it depend on all the details of the scientific
and engineering fields involved. Instead, they included just
the tiny fraction of their knowledge needed for the task. (05)
CP> 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. (06)
It certainly does not mean that. It merely means that the
details of the various competing theories are irrelevant to
the way those units of measure are used. (07)
For example, just look at the progress in physics in the past
century. There has been a revolution in all the fundamental
principles underlying the subject. But that lump of platinum
in Paris that was adequate for 19th century physics is still
being used as a standard for 21st century physics. (08)
We are still using the same names and terminology for units
of measure, and the major difference is in the number of
digits after the decimal point. The VIM document is just
as useful for 19th c physics as 21st c physics. The fact
that we are using logic notations instead of English or
French may change the level of precision, but the content
and theory independence of the UoM should be the same. (09)
CP> 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... (010)
I am not objecting to the discussions. What I am objecting
to is the assumption that they will lead to more content
in the UoM axioms than is contained in the VIM document. (011)
Fundamental principle: The UoM is *not* an upper-level
ontology, and it must be compatible with *every* ontology
and project that is compatible with the VIM document.
That implies no additions to the content of UoM axioms
that are not mentioned or implied by the VIM documents. (012)
John (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|