In the case of: (01)
Does 1 meter = 1.00 meter (02)
My suggestion would quantify the answer assuming you had the following
concepts included for each ontology class: (03)
1. The concept ( in this case 'length")
2. The value domain ( in this case 1 and 1.00)
3. The precision ( in this case a misalignment of a whole number and a
number with tenths and hundreths)
4. A qualifier ( in this case "meter") (04)
This seems sort of basic, no?? (05)
Sent from my iPhone (07)
On 2009-09-29, at 8:31 PM, "Joe Collins" <joseph.collins@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Well, actually, it is. It means 'the same as'. It does not mean
>> the same as' or 'not the same as, but so close that I can't measure
>> difference' or 'very likely very close to' or any of these other
>> notions. Equal means *equal*. If A=B then there is *one thing* with
>> names, not two things that are very close.
> You are correct in that approximately equal, not being transitive,
> can not be an
> equivalence relation.
> In that case, I must conclude that
>> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false?
> is false
>> Why? I don't think our ontology is intended to be restricted to use
>> by physical scientists.
> I don't either. The SI/VIM standard on quantities and units is,
> however, a
> formalized scientific theory. If, in trying to capture it in an
> mathematical form for use in computing systems it no longer makes
> sense to
> physical scientists, then it no longer makes sense that relates to
> the real world.
> It is then of no real use to anyone.
>> IMO, this is all beside the point. The question as posed does not
>> mention accuracy or measurements or anything else. It simply asks
>> whether 1 is the same as 1.00. And I think the only possible answer
>> yes. (If I were being a computer scientist, I could hallucinate the
>> integer/FP distinction onto this question, and then the answer would
>> depend upon the programming language I was using; but this very
>> fact is
>> evidence that this is not the intended meaning of the question,
> The question as posed is ill defined: there is no definition of the
> symbols. If
> we just take it as given without further definition, i.e.,
>> 1 m = 1.00 m : true or false?
> then *WE* must say false, simply because "1" and "1.00" have
> different symbols.
> To say otherwise without further definition of what the symbols mean
> is to be
> tacitly adding some kind of additional meaning which is not
> explicitly defined.
> I was trying to expressly add a reasonable meaning.
> In either case, now I say FALSE and FALSE.
> Let me recall your response:
>> Depends on whether you consider 1 = 1.00. In other words, its nothing
>> to do with meters. But I'd say, yes. (On the grounds that I presume
>> this is meant to address issues of precision in quantity
>> specifications, and I believe they should be relegated to another
> Were you doing that "hallucinating" thing when filling in the
> missing meaning here?
> Regards, /:^)
> Joe C.
> Joseph B. Collins, Ph.D.
> Code 5583, Adv. Info. Tech.
> Naval Research Laboratory
> Washington, DC 20375
> (202) 404-7041
> (202) 767-1122 (fax)
> B34, R221C
> 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/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (010)