Martin, (01)
The last line of your note aptly describes much of this discussion: (02)
MSW> Which is ... turning in circles. (03)
I have a high regard for philosophy of science and good methodologies
for engineering. But those topics very quickly get into nearly every
aspect of a full-blown upper-level ontology. (04)
We are not going to solve all those problems in the UoM. It's OK
to think about them and about the questions of how the UoM will
relate to them. But we cannot address them adequately in the UoM,
and any attempt at a half-vast solution in the UoM is likely to
be worse than being silent about them. (05)
My recommendation is to limit the scope of the UoM to the problems
of using a formal logic to state the matters that are addressed
informally in the SI/VIM documents. (06)
In short, we should ignore anything that those documents ignore.
And we should probably ignore any issues that those documents
mention briefly, but do not treat in detail. (07)
If the authors of the SI/VIM documents avoided any topics,
they probably saw some warning signs: "Here be dragons." (08)
Let's not go there -- at least not in the UoM. (09)
John (010)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (011)
|