RE: SUO: RE: SUMO as a starter document
Tim,
I agree with you and believe that the authors are aware of this. The
confusion arises because of an artifact with the ontology browser only. If
you look at the ontology source file you'll find that Nano-Second is
correctly listed as being 1.0E-9 of a Second even though the browser
erroneously displays as 9.999999717180685E-10. While we certainly want the
browser to be as accurate as possible and will fix this, it is intended
only as an aid to understanding our proposal. The text source file should
be considered definitive.
On the other hand, you might instead be making a point about the number
of digits which are considered significant in a conversion factor. One
possible solution would be to have all numbers stated with all their
significant digits. That could be unwieldy though for simple multipliers
as I'm not sure how we'd represent that the notion of "doubling" has
infinite precision (in terms of the multiplier itself). Was this the issue
that you were addressing and do you have a suggestion as to how to solve it?
Adam
At 07:44 AM 8/16/2001 +0100, Tim King wrote:
>I think you miss my point. I am well aware of the answer that you gave (I
>should be stripped of my professional engineer status if I am not ;-) I
>deduce that the proposers of the unit of measure ontology are not
>aware. The current representation does not capture, make explicit and
>preserve the richness that is enabled by the usual conventions of the
>paper-based era.
>
>Cheers,
>Tim.
>
>*************************************************************************
>*
>* Dr. Timothy M. KING CEng MIMechE PhD DIC ACGI
>* Executive Consultant, Technology
>* LSC Group, Concept House, Victoria Road, TAMWORTH, UK - B79 7HL
>* Switchboard: +44-1827-708000 Fax: +44-1827-708500
>* Direct telephone: +44-1827-708535 (with VoiceMail)
>* e-mail: tmk@lsc.co.uk Internet:
><http://www.lsc.co.uk/>http://www.lsc.co.uk/
>*
>*************************************************************************
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dickert, John [<mailto:JDickert@DTIC.MIL>mailto:JDickert@DTIC.MIL]
> > Sent: 14 August 2001 21:53
> > To: 'Tim King'
> > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: SUMO as a starter document
> >
> >
> > 1E-9 has an error of measurement of 1 part in 1. 1.00E-9
> > has an error
> > of measurement of 1 part in 100.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim King [<mailto:tmk@LSC.CO.UK>mailto:tmk@LSC.CO.UK]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:06 AM
> > To: Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: SUO: RE: SUMO as a starter document
> >
> >
> > A very fine web reference; I will use this often, I think.
> > Thank you.
> > However, I also think that you are missing my point about the
> > string "1E-9".
> > Is it the same as "1.00E-9". On what basis have we chosen
> > this notation?
> > Is this representation sufficient for all possible forms of
> > mathematical
> > accuracy and determinism? If all systems implemented SUMO as
> > is would they
> > avoid the introduction of numerical error that the ontology
> > browser has
> > done? Furthermore, for instance, the conversion factor for
> > miles to meters
> > is "1609.344". I suppose that this is derived (from meter ->
> > inch -> foot
> > -> yard -> mile?). We are mixing up string representation of
> > numbers that
> > have a different foundation.
> >
> >
Adam Pease
Teknowledge
(650) 424-0500 x571