Ed, (01)
I think that we seem to agree more than disagree: (02)
JFS>> 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. (03)
EB> 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. (04)
I certainly would not want the UoM to morph into YAUO (Yet Another
Upper Ontology). It should avoid anything that could be inherited
from AUO (Any Upper Ontology) or covered by SOSO (Some Other
Specialized Ontology). (05)
JFS>> How many modules should we have? (06)
EB> One. When we have demonstrated that we can do that, we can
> consider expanding the scope. (07)
I agree that the UoM should consist of one module. If at all
possible, I would hope that the considerations for using the
UoM in designing chips or bridges could be put into a SOSO
devoted to engineering -- or better yet to multiple SOSOs
for microelectronics, civil engineering, etc. (08)
Somebody who uses the UoM for selling potatoes or pumping
gasoline should not have to wade through a SOSO devoted to
all the engineering considerations for those subjects. (09)
JFS>> The VIM document is consistent with those upper
>> ontologies [Cyc, SUMO, DOLCE, BFO, etc.]. (010)
EB> 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. (011)
I had hoped they might chime into the UoM discussions,
but they're probably not listening. If they have serious
inconsistencies with it, then anybody who uses their
ontologies will run into serious incompatibilities. (012)
Therefore, I would claim that any upper ontology that is
used by the same people who use VIM (directly or indirectly)
will either be compatible with VIM, become compatible with
VIM, or be rejected by anybody who uses VIM. (013)
Therefore, I believe that it is safe to assume that making
the UoM compatible with VIM will make it compatible with
any upper ontology used by people who use VIM. (014)
EB> If someone has looked at the quantity models in multiple
> upper ontologies, we would all appreciate a pointer to the paper. (015)
Amen. (016)
John (017)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (018)
|