Relaying the following ... =ppy (01)
Smith, Barry wrote 2006年12月18日 14:32:56 -0500:
Here my response to Steve; feel free to redirect. (02)
At 11:00 AM 12/18/2006, you wrote:
> Barry,
> Fascinating slides, and a philosophy with
> which I heartily agree, in principle. I do have
> comments, especially since you head into traditional
> NIST territory with your SI discussion.
>
> 1) To my knowledge, 6 of the 7 SI base units are in
> fact definitional, with the kilogram being the only
> one that is based upon an artifact. This last unit,
> in fact, will be changing this decade, to one of two
> definitions - one based upon the amu (atomic mass
> unit), basically a particular number of a particular
> atom; and the other based on Planck's constant,
> using the quantum effect manifested in Josephson
> junctions to produce a force derived from
> fundamental constants. So, while they can all be
> described as arbitrary, they all (will) have
> definitions. (03)
I agree with this -- I think, though, that it does not
affect my argument (04)
> 2) While the SI system is tried and true, you will
> probably be astonished, and likely horrified with
> the debates and conclusions being reached just
> beneath the surface. I am referring to what is known
> as the VIM, the International Vocabulary of
> Metrology, the third edition of which is just about
> to be released (or may have, by now). I have
> attached the draft. If you have the fortitude,
> you will find upon reading it (see the first two
> attachments) that the center of debate relates to
> the notion of whether there is such a thing as the
> "true value" as compared to the "measured value".
> One school of thought (the IEC view) dismisses the
> notion of the true value altogether. And here's the
> horrifying part: to reach agreement between the two
> approaches to measurement and uncertainty (see the
> third attachment), the international community is
> agreeing to a set of terms, at least one of which
> intentionally has two possible interpretations, to
> satisfy either the IEC view, or the GUM view, of
> uncertainty. So depending how deep you go, even a
> "gold standard" reveals ambiguities. (05)
The bad guys are everywhere. But we can (sometimes)
make good guy artifacts even out of initiatives which
are messed up by bad guys. (06)
> 3) Finally, your notion of a "perfect" diagnosis
> implies to me a closed world view of ontologies,
> which may not work well with descriptions of the
> real world. (07)
Not my notion at all, in fact -- I was just citing C.
Friedman (and you are of course right) (08)
> At some point, I'd be interested in your thoughts on
> Herb Simon's treatment of the "sciences of the
> artificial" which I believe are very germane to your
> approach. (09)
I have been influenced by Simon's thinking on
modularity/complexity -- I guess the OBO Foundry idea
is in keeping therewith. (010)
Barry (011)
> Thursday's talk will be lots of fun. I'm looking
forward to it.
>
> - Steve
> (012)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Barry [mailto:phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 4:34 PM
> To: peter.yim-cim3.com; ray@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: slides
>
> Comments welcome/
> BS (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)