On Sep 30, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Chris Partridge wrote: (01)
> Pat,
>
> As your comment " better, it is a relationship between the object
> and a
> temperature. It is, however, not the property which we commonly call
> 'the
> temperature of the object'." indicates, the kind of relationship is
> different. (02)
Um... yes, I guess. Though classifying *kinds* of relationships isn't
very high on our priority list here, seems to me. (03)
> One 'understanding' issue is that properties such a simple
> temperature are
> seen as direct (to use Matthew's term) properties of the object,
> that can be
> measured directly.
> However, if one considers these indirect properties, then they are not
> measured in the same way. So, at first blush, they seem to be
> different
> kinds of properties. (04)
Again, I guess... if one considers [how it is measured] to be an
essential attribute of a relationship. I'm not immediately convinced
of that being a reasonable thesis, but I havn't thought about it very
hard. For crude ontology purposes, I'm happy to have a property of
relationships called something like 'measurable', which temperature
would be but maximum-working-temperature would not be. (05)
> They seem to be like Cambridge properties, in as much as it is not
> clear how (06)
> mere examination of the object will reveal (the value of) the
> property. (07)
Surely *most* relationships are such that they cannot be determined by
mere examination, eg being the largest of a group, being owned by
someone, etc.. (08)
> So
> some kind of explanation of the relation is needed to understand it.
>
> At the practical engineering level, the normal interpretations of
> scale
> operations such as addition (e.g. in the case of mass, putting both
> objects
> with the mass on the same scale) and so on do not seem to work in
> the same
> way. (09)
Oh, indeed. But mass is the exception here, not the other case. Being
additive in this way is characteristic of quantity measurements, but
very, very few relations are quantity measurements. Perhaps this is
all you were saying (?) (010)
>
> (and hence) At a practical programming level, one has to use different
> constraints when adding and multiplying the numbers. (011)
I doubt it would be a good idea to ever add or multiply maximum
operating temperatures. But then, who ever said or implied that it
would be? (012)
>
> I really do not want to engage in any discussion of this next point
> with you
> (can we have a truce) (013)
I wasn't aware we were at war :-) (014)
> , but in my discussions of these kinds of properties
> with people who procure aircraft (max operational speed, etc.) the
> contract
> clauses they devise to define these properties are extremely good
> examples
> of the kinds of ceteris paribus discussions that come up in the
> philosophic
> analysis of dispositions. (015)
Well, maybe. But I bet that the issues that engage the writers of the
contracts are not those that engage the professional attention of your
typical philosopher. (Like, whether or not something is a Cambridge
property, for example. Sorry, cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.) (016)
> So my view (and I know it won't be yours) is that
> we can cherry pick some stuff to help elucidate (understand) these
> 'dispositional' qualities. And so understand how we aggregate, etc.
> them. (017)
Depends which way the intellectual traffic is going. I'm sure this
would be a rich source of juicy examples to test ones philosophical
teeth on, but am less sanguine that the results of this chewing will
have great utility for legal discussions. But indeed, let us not
continue this meta-argument here. (018)
>
> Of course, if no-one wishes to know what kind of arithmetical (scale)
> properties the quantities have (or that they have consistent
> arithmetical
> properties) then you are right to say "I see no problem here that
> needs
> anything special to be done or discussed." However, this was the
> context in
> which Matthew raised the issue. (019)
I guess I didn't perceive that context at the time. We were talking
about scales and units, and whether those ideas applied to such
properties as maximum operating temperature. Seems to me they clearly
do, and unproblematically so. The notion of being 10 degrees C above
the m.o.t. certainly makes perfect sense, for example, so apparently
m.o.t.'s are real temperatures on a temperature scale. (020)
>
> BTW It was Matthew who not only raised this point here, but also
> first made
> me aware of it some time ago. (021)
I guess I may have (still) missed what this point is exactly. True,
there might be more than one relationship between a thing and a
temperature. Which seems to me to not be worth talking about, at least
at this stage of the business, as it has no bearing on the issues of
how to describe dimensions and units and quantities. (022)
Pat (023)
> As an engineer, he can quote you chapter and
> verse on this topic. As I recall it, David (Leal) - another engineer
> - can
> as well.
>
> 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: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
>> Sent: 30 September 2009 16:43
>> To: uom-ontology-std
>> Cc: Chris Partridge
>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>
>>
>> On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Chris Partridge wrote:
>>
>>> Gunther,
>>>
>>> Maximum allowable temperature is a disposition of the object.
>>> The object may reach never reach that temperature, or may reach it,
>>> even
>>> exceed it, but that does not have much, in itself, to do with the
>>> property.
>>>
>>> The property is something like: other things being equal, if you
>>> stay below
>>> this temperature the object (more often, a type of object) will
>>> operate as
>>> specified - if you go above it then it may not.
>>>
>>> (Allowable is probably not the best example, as one could try and
>>> cash this
>>> out by saying that one is defining two states that the object can be
>>> in -
>>> below (or equal) to the maximum and above the maximum. But that
>>> would ignore
>>> the intention that staying within the 'allowable' range should
>>> provide some
>>> guarantee of normal operation.)
>>>
>>> So, the object has (or does not have) this property whatever its
>>> actual
>>> temperature.
>>
>> OK, but this does not contradict anything anyone has said. It is a
>> property of the object, and its value is a temperature (better, it is
>> a relationship between the object and a temperature.) It is, however,
>> not the property which we commonly call 'the temperature of the
>> object'. I see no problem here that needs anything special to be done
>> or discussed.
>>
>> Pat H.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I suppose one could argue that these are not quantities at all - but
>>> then (I
>>> am told) most useful engineering measures would be excluded.
>>>
>>> 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 Gunther Schadow
>>>> Sent: 29 September 2009 21:51
>>>> To: uom-ontology-std
>>>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>>>
>>>> Matthew West wrote:
>>>>> Dear Ingvar,
>>>>>
>>>>> This sounds like an interesting challenge.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am as aware of the contents of VIM as of the SI brochure, and
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> "n.b." makes exactly my point. What you might call "newton-
>>>>>> meter as
>>>>>> a unit
>>>>>> alone", I prefer to call "nominal newton-meter". However, note
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> only
>>>>>> some units can be called nominal units and tied to more than one
>>>>>> kind-of-quantity; many units are unambiguously tied only to one
>>>>>> kind-of-quantity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you give me a unit (or two) that you think only applies to
>>>>> one
>>>>> kind-of-quantity, and I'll see if I can identify another?
>>>>>
>>>>> Engineering is full of things like Maximum Allowable Working
>>>>> Temperature, which is certainly not a temperature (try measuring
>>>>> it with
>>>>> a thermometer).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why is maximum allowable temperature not a temperature? Just
>>>> because
>>>> it isn't realized? It is a temperature specification. It is a
>>>> quantity
>>>> even if it doesn't exist anywhere at any particular moment in time.
>>>>
>>>> But of course that is another issue and I still agree that a
>>>> maximum
>>>> allowable temperature of this machine can not be well compared with
>>>> the water temperature of my pool -- but then they can if the
>>>> machine
>>>> is meant to go into my pool (which I don't have)
>>>>
>>>> -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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494
>> 3973
>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> (024)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
|