Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

No Real Difference between gist:Magnitude and gist:UnitOfMeasure #443

Closed
tedhills opened this issue Mar 5, 2021 · 1 comment
Closed

Comments

@tedhills
Copy link
Contributor

tedhills commented Mar 5, 2021

According to http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/introduction.html:

"A unit is a particular physical quantity, defined and adopted by convention, with which other particular quantities of the same kind are compared to express their value."

The value of a physical quantity is the quantitative expression of a particular physical quantity as the product of a number and a unit, the number being its numerical value. Thus, the numerical value of a particular physical quantity depends on the unit in which it is expressed."

It can be seen that there is some circularity here, in that the value of a physical quantity expresses a physical quantity. In fact, the value of a physical quantity is a physical quantity. The only difference is in the form of expression. A unit is given as one of something, so that the "one" can be dropped, since 1x = x.

I see that gist has a parallel structure, where gist:UnitOfMeasure is (one of) a unit, and gist:Magnitude enables the expression of a quantity as any number times a unit (including of course one times a unit).

Thus, what a gist:UnitOfMeasure expresses is exactly the same as what a gist:Magnitude expresses, except that the expression of gist:UnitOfMeasure is restricted to expressing "exactly one of".

But gist:UnitOfMeasure and gist:Magnitude are disjoint top-level classes. In fact, gist:UnitOfMeasure should be a subclass of gist:Magnitude, since every unit of measure is just one particular quantity, which is what gist:Magnitude expresses.

It then becomes questionable whether we really need to have subclasses of gist:Magnitude just to say "one of" the particular kind of quantity the gist:Magnitude subclass identifies. In fact, all we need is an individual of gist:Magnitude, such as gist:_one_millisecond.

This became real for me when I had to decide how to mark up natural language text containing words like "millisecond" and "kilogram". Should I use the units gist:_millisecond and gist:_kilogram, or the magnitudes gist:_one_millisecond and gist:_one_kilogram? But wait, why are there definitions for gist:_millisecond, gist:_one_millisecond, and gist:_kilogram, but not gist:_one_kilogram? The choice seems arbitrary. What am I missing?

Furthermore, if one digs into the International System of Units (SI) (https://www.nist.gov/pml/special-publication-330), one realizes that even basic units are in fact multiples of smaller units or fractions of larger units. For instance, a second is the duration of 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium atom; a meter is the distance traveled by light in vacuum in 1/299792458 second; etc., etc. This emphasizes that a unit is an arbitrary physical quantity, chosen by convention, and not really a special class of thing--other than the recognition that it was chosen by convention.

In light of this, I propose the elimination of class gist:UnitOfMeasure as superfluous (and thereby eliminating the incorrect disjoint axiom referencing :Magnitude), and the replacement of all of the gist:BaseUnit individuals with corresponding gist:Magnitude individuals.

@rjyounes
Copy link
Collaborator

rjyounes commented Mar 5, 2021

Same as #61, which we decided to close. See discussion on that issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants