John F. Sowa wrote:
> Chris [Partridge wrote:]
>
> 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.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
> (01)
I hope not, but I certainly agree that we don't want to engineer all the
concepts that have been discussed on this exploder. At the rate we are
going, it will take us another year to construct a bare bones units
ontology. (02)
> Questions: How many modules should we have? (03)
One. When we have demonstrated that we can do that, we can consider
expanding the scope. (04)
> Short point about the last question: The VIM document is consistent
> with those upper ontologies. (05)
Which ones? That is one of the questions I was hoping certain experts
would actually answer. I have seen a great deal of chaff go by without
any of that kind of wheat in it. (06)
> 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?
> (07)
That is a research question. I don't want to answer it. It would,
however, be useful to know whether the ontology we produce is consistent
with certain named Upper Ontologies, and if not, why not, and whether
some minor change can improve that. Could we start by naming the upper
ontologies we care about? (08)
If someone has looked at the quantity models in multiple upper
ontologies, we would all appreciate a pointer to the paper. (09)
-Ed (010)
--
Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694 (011)
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government authority." (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|