Re: SUO: RE: SUMO as a starter document
There are several versions of KIF since it is not yet a standard. We
are currently using a language called SUO-KIF and specified at
http://suo.ieee.org/suo-kif.html . I believe that the appearance of
exponents in the browser are consistent with the BNF defined in the SUO-KIF
At 11:28 PM 7/18/2001 -0400, Yang Yun wrote:
>Unfortunately there are now 3 definitions of Exponent 10 in SUMO.
>One is defined by kif as "expt 10". The other 2 are undefined.
>"^" is used as exponent, but is defined as a meta operator in kif.
>"E09" is undefined, but its meaning is clear to FORTRAN users.
>The definitions of mega and other SI prefixes should be exponent 10
>For exponent 2 based notions like megabit, it is recommended by IEEE
>standards coordinating committee , or whatever, to move to a new
>prefix space ie kibi (Ki) , mebi (Mi), gibi (Gi) and tebi (Ti) to
>avoid confusion (as noted in SUMO, but the 2-based notions are
>substuted for mega there).
>So a lot of work is needed just to encode SI in SUMO.
>A proof that the job is done would be to be able to do
>dimension checking on expressions. See the CellML mark up
>language for an example of how an ontology can be used for
>dimension checking in a real scientific application.
>To really define a unit of measurement its necessary to define
>at the same time a frame of reference of practices and institutions.
>Calling a subontology a name like "SI" leaves these unstated.
>It would be better to create a conglomerate like
>"SI Frame of Reference", with traceability from the definitions
>to the authoritative bodies (like NIST) and to the vendors of
>the measuring equipment who must calibrate to certain tolerances.
>Similar frames of reference are Universal Time Coordinated, and
> >Yes but which still includes (for example) ...
> >Nano-Second (constant id 452)
> > Arg 1:
> > (instance-of Nano-Second TimeMeasure-Duration)
> > (instance-of Nano-Second UnitOfMeasure)
> > (documentation Nano-Second "Submultiple of &%Second-Duration.
> >Symbol: ns. A &%UnitOfMeasure equal to one billionth of a &%Second-
> > (equal (MeasureFn ?NUMBER Nano-Second) (MeasureFn
> >(MultiplicationFn ?NUMBER 9.999999717180685E-10) Second))
> >Surely something is wrong in the approach to representation if we
> > are ending up with numerical error. Furthermore, I am not sure
> >whether even the string "1E-9" would be "correct"? Where is the
> >information that this is a definitional, exact multiplication factor
> >(in contrast to the factors that are included for multiplication
> >between metre and mile; by the way is the SI unit "meter"
> >or "metre")? Where is the information that "Nano-" used with all
> >other SI units carries the same definition? and so on ...
> >As ever,
>Searching for the best free email? Try MetaCrawler Mail, from the #1
>metasearch service on the Web, http://www.metacrawler.com
(650) 424-0500 x571