Chris, (01)
I agree on the importance of all the topics that have been
discussed in this forum. The main question I would ask is
how those topics should be packaged in modules. (02)
> I agree that there needs to be a decision on scope. However,
> I would expect it to consider trade-offs. The indirect apparently
> UoM type quantities are something that engineers use a lot and
> could do with some clarification. In other words, this would
> have significant value. (03)
Yes. But this thread has also uncovered many important issues
that require clarification. If we put all the qualifications and
clarifications in a single document, it would get into all or
nearly all the topics covered by a large upper ontology. (04)
Questions: How many modules should we have? How and where do we
draw the lines between modules? How are those modules related
to any or all of the upper ontologies that are being developed?
How much overlap is there between the UoM and any of those upper
ontologies? Is it possible for a UoM to be consistent with
upper ontologies that are inconsistent with each other? (05)
Short point about the last question: The VIM document is consistent
with those upper ontologies. Is it possible to limit the UoM in
such a way that it is consistent with any ontology that is
consistent with the VIM document? (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|