Duane, I would like to force my list of questions still, because
they keep coming up in the discussion. I want to be able to point
to this list and say: "we agreed that 1 L/L = 1 kg/kg and therefore
let's not bring this discussion up again" (or whatever it is we
agreed on.) (01)
Now, if you want to add any additional statements that you want to
be able to affirm, go ahead and add them. For example, you could
say that our UoM theory must say that: (02)
1 furlong is-comparable-with 1 m (03)
or, you may want to say (04)
1 furlong has-dimension L (05)
1 m has-dimension L (06)
or you may even want to say (07)
1 furlong has-kind-of-quantity Length (08)
push the envelop on this list, and we can come to a common
understanding how the theory should function. (09)
For example, I might agree on the last statement, but what
if I add (010)
1 % has-kind-of-quantity VolumicVolume : true or false? (011)
or (012)
19 m has-kind-of-quantity WaveLength : true or false? (013)
or even (014)
19 m is-approximately-equal-to 15200 kHz : true or false? (015)
Each of these statements can be agreed on and it is much
easier to discuss those than the abstract definitions where
people then dive down using the examples to argue the
merit or faults of such abstract definitions without having
first agreed what the right answer is for those examples that
they use. (016)
regards,
-Gunther (017)
Duane Nickull wrote:
> Gunther:
>
> For these statements here...
>
>
>
> 1 = 1 : true or false?
>
> 1 N.m = 1 N.m : true or false?
>
> 1 m = 100 cm : true or false?
>
> 1 L/L = 1 kg/kg : true or false?
>
> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false?
>
> 1.0 m = 1.001 m : true or false?
>
> 0 m = 0 kg : true or false?
>
> I firmly believe that these are defined within the metric taxonomy.
> Wouldn’t it be better to focus on some of the following:
>
> A centimeter, meter, foot, inch, furlong are all specialized ways to
> measure length.
> Furlongs per fortnight, knots, miles per hour, parsnips, KPH are all
> specialized ways to measure distance over time.
> A bakers dozen, a six pack, a package of 500, a single item are all
> specialized ways to measure units.
> Etc...
>
> If the binary relationships between each of these specializations can be
> mapped to the higher concept, this would theoretically allow disparate
> systems to be easily reconciled for global trade facilitation or other
> purposes, no?
>
> D
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (018)
--
Gunther Schadow, M.D., Ph.D. gschadow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Associate Professor Indiana University School of Informatics
Regenstrief Institute, Inc. Indiana University School of Medicine
tel:1(317)423-5521 http://aurora.regenstrief.org (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|