> Ingvar,
>
> If Mike had the same impression as me, I think he was concerned that the
> discussion looked as if it was in danger of 'confusing the representation
> with what is represented' - which, knowing you, I am sure you were not
> doing.
>
> So ..
>> >> Can't you both cancel and preserve the difference? That is, can't you
>> >> have
>> >> both an over-arching concept 'nominal newton-meter' and a number of
>> >> subsumed concepts such as 'energy newton-meter' and 'torque
>> >> newton-meter';
>> >> each of which brings in what VIM calls a kind-of-quantity?
>
> Can you not see how an innocent reader could take this to be a question
> about concepts, and not what the concepts refer to.
> I appreciate that Gunther talks about 'UoM concepts' in the para before
> (and
> elsewhere) and it is courteous in reply to use the same concept-talk,
> especially to people who are used to talking that way.
> I also suspect that you may have some reservations about whether (or how)
> all concepts do refer in mind.
> However, as you say "UoM ontologists ... study and represent relations
> between measurement units" - so it seems to me you agree on the basic
> issue.
> Or am I mistaken, and you regarded this as a linguistic analysis? (01)
No, you are not mistaken; and I am sorry that I took so much for granted
when writing my mail. But don't make to sharp a distinction between
lingusitic analysis and analysis of the world. Concepts have two aspects:
an intension and an extension. (02)
Ingvar (03)
>
> Regards,
> Chris Partridge
> Chief Ontologist
>
> Mobile: +44 790 5167263
> Phone: +44 20 81331891
> Fax: +44 20 7855 0268
> E-Mail: partridgec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> BORO Centre Limited
> Website: www.BOROCentre.com
> Registered in England No: 04418581
> Registered Office: 25 Hart Street, Henley on Thames,
> Oxfordshire RG9 2AR
>
> 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.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: uom-ontology-std-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:uom-ontology-std-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ingvar_johansson
>> Sent: 29 September 2009 12:57
>> To: uom-ontology-std
>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>
>> > The art of ontology is the art of not designing something. What you're
>> > suggesting looks a lot more like a design solution than a
>> representation
>> > of real things and the way they are.
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> Please, explain in detail what you mean, and how it affects my proposal.
>> In order to talk about the world we have to design concepts, and in
>> order
>> to make measurements of properties in the world we have to design scales
>> with measurement units. Then linguists can study and represent relations
>> between concepts, and UoM ontologists can study and represent relations
>> between measurement units. So what?
>>
>> Ingvar
>>
>> >
>> > ingvar_johansson wrote:
>> >> A bit below comes a question from an informatics layman.
>> >>
>> >> Gunther Schadow wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> ingvar_johansson wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> one more comment. You asked:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> 1 N.m = 1 N.m : true or false?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> and I said 'true' (and so did Pat H). But this does not imply that
>> 1
>> >>>> N.m
>> >>>> of energy = 1 N.m of moment of force, since energy and moment of
> force
>> >>>> are
>> >>>> different kinds of quantities (despite having the same dimension).
>> >>>>
>> >>> and that's precisely my point and why I disagree with Pat Hayes
>> >>> that this is not useful. I was asking if 1 N.m = 1 N.m and
>> >>> the answer is ambiguous. The unit is newton-meter, it is not
>> >>> newton-meter-of-energy, therefore, I would argue, that the unit
>> >>> is the same even if the kinds of quantity are different. Unless
>> >>> we agree on this (by either one of us changing our mind) I don't
>> >>> see a value at looking at ontological constructs.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't want to discuss the N.m issue in particular at this
>> >>> time, only that it's pointless to proceed if there is
>> >>> disagreement about this matter.
>> >>>
>> >>> The question remains what we believe jointly that UoM concepts
>> >>> should do for us. You may want them to preserve the difference
>> >>> between torque and energy, I don't.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Can't you both cancel and preserve the difference? That is, can't you
>> >> have
>> >> both an over-arching concept 'nominal newton-meter' and a number of
>> >> subsumed concepts such as 'energy newton-meter' and 'torque
>> >> newton-meter';
>> >> each of which brings in what VIM calls a kind-of-quantity?
>> >>
>> >> Ingvar
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> So the question remains
>> >>> open on the list. But there is no point in proceeding if we
>> >>> don't agree on this. We might, however, agree if we use these
>> >>> example to be more clear about why we have the desire for the
>> >>> UoM concepts to do what we want them to do and possibly how
>> >>> else we might get our desires fulfilled.
>> >>>
>> >>> In my experience with dealing with scientific equations and
>> >>> computations, the units were incredibly useful for (a) converting
>> >>> to a unit that I needed and (b) giving assurance that I probably
>> >>> didn't make some gross error in my equations. Thus, in my
>> >>> experience with dimensioned terms it does not matter in the end
>> >>> whether the m in N.m, was the length of a lever or a distance
>> >>> of displacement, that is all in the concerns that led to my
>> >>> equations. The units function more like a check-digit at the
>> >>> end: if the unit term does not agree with the expected kind of
>> >>> quantity, something went wrong in my calculation or the formula.
>> >>>
>> >>> This is why around UCUM implementation I use the concept of
>> >>> a "DimensionedQuantity". A Quantity is any set of values
>> >>> where at least some values have a difference operation. A
>> >>> DimensionedQuantity is essentially a number with a dimension.
>> >>> Such a quantity for example is 16 N.m. Units are themselves
>> >>> DimensionedQuantities with a name (and the name can be complex
>> >>> such as N.m or even 16.N.m) So, my ontology behaves exactly
>> >>> like the symbols that I write on a sheet of blank paper when
>> >>> I compute my scientific equations. It does not do more nor
>> >>> less than what the units do on paper. I.e., 1 N.m = 1 N.m
>> >>> = 1 kg.m2.s-2 = 1 J.
>> >>>
>> >>> There is nothing you can do to separate these concepts unless
>> >>> by assuming into your theory the detail of all of mechanics
>> >>> (and all of science) which you can't do.
>> >>>
>> >>> BTW, it is not true that N.m of torque and joule of energy
>> >>> are completely unrelated. Because the torque times angle
>> >>> moved is again your energy. Whether or not we maintain a
>> >>> dimension for angle in UCUM is also besides this point. Of
>> >>> course: by adding more distinct dimensions we may be able
>> >>> to preserve more distinctions and by having less dimensions
>> >>> we lose distinctions that we can make by just looking at
>> >>> number and unit. But because I do not expect much more than
>> >>> the function of a "dimensional check digit" and defined
>> >>> conversion rates from the units, I can give or take a few
>> >>> dimensions without much trouble. The only place were I really
>> >>> get into trouble is where we haven't even started to discuss,
>> >>> i.e., idiosyncratic "procedure defined units".
>> >>>
>> >>> regards,
>> >>> -Gunther
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>> _________________________________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _________________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Mike Bennett
>> > Director
>> > Hypercube Ltd.
>> > 89 Worship Street
>> > London EC2A 2BF
>> > Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
>> > Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
>> > www.hypercube.co.uk
>> > Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068
>> >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (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)
|