These are all legal terms rather than physical facts about the thing.
This is interesting because it means that legal terms (and restrictions
including contractual restrictions, limitations to warranties and so on)
have facts about them which are demoninated in most of the same units as
actual physical measurements are. The same would apply to that "Maximum
operating temperature" example - the thing might or might not blow up,
but the material fact of the matter is that if it breaks, the
manufacturer won't replace it for you under warranty (assuming they find
out, that is). That's a consideration about units that's quite a long
way from considerations about measuring things. (01)
This is another good reason not to lock the ontology of units of measure
into the ontology of things that are measured or an ontology of ways
that things may be measured. (02)
Mike (03)
Matthew West wrote:
> Dear Chris and Ingvar,
>
> I've been away and missed this.
>
>
>> The direct/indirect distinction was raised by Matthew and can be
>> found in
>> ISO 15926. Matthew or David can give you the latest links if you
>> cannot
>> google it.
>>
>> It is part of an ongoing discussion elsewhere on the list ... e.g.
>> ---
>>
>> Matthew W: "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?
>>
>> IJ-answer: m (length), kg (mass), and t (duration).
>>
>
> MW: So some other quantity kinds that use these units would be:
> Maximum ship length allowed on berth
> Maximum allowed loaded weight
> Minimum Dwell Time (but you did not actually give a unit for this)
>
> Any other takers?
>
> Regards
>
> Matthew West
> Information Junction
> Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
>
> This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> England and Wales No. 6632177.
> Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
>
>
>
>
>> ---
>>
>> The issue is, as you have indicated, one about the scope of the UoM
>> ontology.
>> This question of 'indirect' units was being discussed and I
>> (assuming that
>> this meant it was an 'allowed' topic) commented on it. Was I
>> mistaken? So, I
>> made no judgment about whether it is in our scope (your question
>> seems to
>> imply I did) - I'll let you guys argue about that.
>>
>> However, if I was asked to make such a judgement I would say that
>> it is a
>> difficult call. With the direct units it is reasonably easy to say
>> how these
>> should be used. For indirect properties it is more difficult, but
>> much more
>> useful. The engineers I have worked with would like to find some
>> kind of
>> answer other than rule of thumb. A substantial proportion of the
>> quantities
>> measures in their datasheets are 'indirect'. So, for them, the
>> distinction
>> is important.
>>
>> If one does include them in, one of the problems is the sheer
>> number of
>> indirect relationships and the lack of organisation. I think there
>> is some
>> work to be done on explaining / understanding / unbundling the
>> indirect
>> relationship if one wishes to get a reasonably general set of
>> rules.
>>
>>
>>> Well, indeed. But surely this notion of proper operation is not
>>>
>> part
>>
>>> of an ontology of units and quantities, even if that is
>>>
>> understood to
>>
>>> cover issues of how quantities are measured.
>>>
>> So, if one would like some general classification of indirect
>> units, my
>> guess is that it will be.
>>
>> 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 23:50
>>> To: uom-ontology-std; Chris Partridge
>>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>>
>>> Chris, before proceeding, could you please tell us what you mean
>>>
>> by a
>>
>>> 'direct' property, and why you feel that this direct/indirect
>>> distinction is relevant to our main goal here of formalizing an
>>> ontology of quantities and units.
>>>
>>> Pat Hayes
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Chris Partridge wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Gunther,
>>>>
>>>> Your examples seem to agree with my point that indirect
>>>>
>> properties are
>>
>>>> different from direct ones.
>>>> And I see you cash out the indirect property as a state (the
>>>>
>> option
>>
>>>> I noted
>>>> in my original email).
>>>>
>>>> In your example, as far as I can ascertain, you describe
>>>>
>> observing a
>>
>>>> direct
>>>> temperature, but you stipulate an indirect temperature - e.g.
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> "Maximum
>>>> operating temperature of Machine X" rather than observing or
>>>> measuring it.
>>>> My guess is that there is more than mere stipulation involved
>>>>
>> here.
>>
>>>> One of things your example does not capture is what operating
>>>>
>> properly
>>
>>>> entails.
>>>>
>>> Well, indeed. But surely this notion of proper operation is not
>>>
>> part
>>
>>> of an ontology of units and quantities, even if that is
>>>
>> understood to
>>
>>> cover issues of how quantities are measured.
>>>
>>> One can play this game of 'you havn't captured X' for ever.
>>> Eventually, it will always become circular.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>> Typically there are quite a few ceteris paribus conditions,
>>>>
>> which
>>
>>>> are not mentioned here (or are implied by the use of the phrase
>>>>
>> "act
>>
>>>> of
>>>> operating properly").
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave it to the engineers to provide examples of scale
>>>> properties of
>>>> temperature.
>>>>
>>>> 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: 30 September 2009 22:54
>>>>> To: uom-ontology-std
>>>>> Subject: Re: [uom-ontology-std] What is mass?
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris Partridge wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They seem to be like Cambridge properties, in as much as it
>>>>>>
>> is not
>>
>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>
>>>> how
>>>>
>>>>>> mere examination of the object will reveal (the value of) the
>>>>>> property.
>>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This only works for extensive properties. It fails with
>>>>>
>> temperature
>>
>>>>> already. So that aspect does not seem to make a difference
>>>>>
>> between
>>
>>>>> maximum allowable temperature and actual temperature.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me "maximum allowable temperature" is the upper bound of
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> "operating temperature" interval, which in turn is a criterion
>>>>>
>> over
>>
>>>>> the actual temperature property. The way we handle such things
>>>>>
>> in
>>
>>>>> HL7 is like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Maximum temperature = 40 degree Celsius" is
>>>>>
>>>>> Observation (criterion)
>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>> at time /any time/
>>>>> has value [15;40] degree Celsius
>>>>>
>>>>> "Actual temperature 25 degree Celsius" is
>>>>>
>>>>> Observation (actual)
>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>> at time 2009-09-30T15:05
>>>>> has value [24.5;25.5] degree Celsius
>>>>>
>>>>> "Actual temperature 43 degree Celsius" is
>>>>>
>>>>> Observation (actual)
>>>>> of quantity /core temperatue/
>>>>> at time 2009-09-30T15:15
>>>>> has value [42.5;43.5] degree Celsius
>>>>>
>>>>> Comparison between a criterion and an actual quantity is done
>>>>>
>> by
>>
>>>>> comparing whether the actual quantity is included in the
>>>>>
>> criterion.
>>
>>>>> That way one can also define other criteria, such as
>>>>>
>>>>> "Alarm temperature at > 35 degree Celsius"
>>>>>
>>>>> Observation (criterion)
>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>> at time /any time/
>>>>> has value [35;-) degree Celsius
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between the 2 criteria is how they are related
>>>>>
>> to
>>
>>>>> other information. For example, operating temperature would be
>>>>> related to the operation act that the machine performs whereas
>>>>> alarm temperature would be related to the alarm action:
>>>>>
>>>>> Act "to operate properly"
>>>>> isPerformedBy Machine
>>>>> hasThroughCondition Observation (criterion) for "operating
>>>>> temperature
>>>>> range"
>>>>>
>>>>> Act "to raise alarm"
>>>>> isPerformedBy TemperatureMonitor
>>>>> hasSubject Machine
>>>>> hasTriggerCondition Observation (criterion) for "alarm
>>>>>
>> temperature"
>>
>>>>> so a lot of these notions of "indirect properties" is in my
>>>>>
>> view
>>
>>>>> best modeled by additional structures. But nevertheless one
>>>>>
>> can
>>
>>>>> always define a property as a primitive to stand for such a
>>>>>
>> complex
>>
>>>>> model. E.g.,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Maximum operating temperature of Machine X" :=
>>>>> the high boundary of
>>>>> the range value of
>>>>> the Observation (criterion)
>>>>> of quantity /core temperature/
>>>>> which is the throughCondition of
>>>>> the act of operating properly
>>>>> performed by
>>>>> the Machine X.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we avoid such "indirect properties" with such models, there
>>>>>
>> are
>>
>>>>> then fewer true "direct properties" left, such as /core
>>>>>
>> temperature/.
>>
>>>>> However, you still have multiple temperatures, such as
>>>>>
>>>>> - core temperature
>>>>> - surface temperature
>>>>> - measured by holding a thermometer close to the shell
>>>>> - measured by an attached thermometer (using heat transfer
>>>>>
>> creme)
>>
>>>>> and lo and behold, we can't really compare the core
>>>>>
>> temperature and
>>
>>>>> the surface temperature to find out if the machine is still
>>>>> operating.
>>>>> But we can compare the surface temperatures with core
>>>>>
>> temperatures
>>
>>>>> to find out that the surface temperatures are always closer to
>>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>>> ambient temperature than the core temperature.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> -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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> (04)
--
Mike Bennett
Director
Hypercube Ltd.
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
www.hypercube.co.uk
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|