Peter,

Ah, but we DO use codes to identify objects in the real world. The realm of code sets spans adjectives, nouns, and I suppose verbs and adverbs.

Unit of measure codes are adjectives/properties (more correctly. Incidentally, 'unit' is itself a 'measurement' property [of 'quantity', for example, as 'quantity' itself is a measure, though I've often seen it treated as something other than a 'measure'.]

Among X12 code lists is one which 'identifies' a class of railroad equipment (e..g., "refrigerated car", "piggy-back trailer car", "boxcar", etc. It does not of course 'identify' a specific piece of equipment. That is, it identifies a property of the equipment, not the actual equipment. In my book, it is a code, not an identifier.

In each of the above examples, I believe that the 'semantic' influence of the 'code' is rather localized. But some codes have broad semantic influence. For example, a code list that identifies the role a party plays (e.g., 'buyer', 'seller', etc.) may apply to an entire section (loop iteration) of a document, and in so doing, may establish rules for data presence, value range, etc. In one respect, these codes are simply properties, not unlike 'inches' is a measurement property.

And to keep the mind spinning, those measurement 'properties' like 'cubic feet' get tangled with other measurement qualifiers like 'weight', 'volume', 'torque', etc.

And get even more tangled when one observes that, in the real world of business, 'natural gas' 'volume' might be measured in BTUs (British Thermal Units)! In case that last one has you confused, gas wells produce known BTU/1000CuFt depending upon the well, whereas the client is ordering BTU. But in the pipeline, well, BTU just isn't all that interesting, but cubic feet is! So BTU is convertible into cubic feet, and vixe versa, just as inches is convertible into feet and vice versa. We haven't much mind spin with the latter conversion, but do with BTU/MCuFt.

Cheers,
Bob Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Denno [mailto:peter.denno@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:06 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] CCTONT work progress

Hi Adam,

On Wednesday 27 October 2004 15:50, Adam Pease wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>    Since Entity is the top class of all things, the referent of the
> ContentBearingObject need not be a real world object.  It can be anything
> real or imagined.

Agreed.

My point is that to model the restriction stated in the definition of Code
Type, that Code Type should not be used to identify an object in the real
world, the referent ought to be an &%Attribute or maybe &%Abstract (Which one
I'm not sure. I'm struggling a bit with my understanding of SUMO).

Abstract = Properties or qualities as distinguished from any particular
embodiment of the properties/qualities in a physical medium.

--
Best Regards,
- Peter

Peter Denno
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Manufacturing System Integration Division,
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8260 Tel: +1 301-975-3595
Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8260 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[More with this subject...]