Dear Pat, (01)
you wrote:
> Agreed, but they too often stray from being an arriving at a common
> understanding, into what might be called a confusion of amateur
> ontology-hacking. The current noise about 'equivalence classes' (with
> no mention of any equivalence relations) is a good example. (02)
If you were thinking of me, I took it for granted that the relation is a
similarity relation. (03)
Take mass as an example. If one wants to take one's departure in
individual instances of mass (what VIM calls quantity values of mass),
then generic quantity values such as 1.53 kg and 137.999 kg can be
regarded as being classes of exactly similar instances; and the dimension
mass can be regarded as the class of all such equivalence classes whose
instances are physical-chemically comparable. (04)
Best,
Ingvar (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|