W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > May 2005

RE: terminology basic principles

From: James Brooks - Thesaurus Manager <j.brooks@cabi.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:05:47 +0100
To: public-esw-thes@w3.org
Message-id: <DD8DEEFBC201E4458B9E7277AC6B6B7639EF97@wallex.cabi.org>
Alistair et al.,

Good to see attention paid to basic concepts.

It strikes me the following would also be of interest to the wider RDF-S/OWL ontology community, partly because it begins with this same sort of model from ISO/TC 37, i.e. objects - concepts - representations and then builds an ontology from there, and partly because of its focus on 'property':

Rene Dybkaer (2004) An ontology on property for physical, chemical, and biological systems. APMIS Supplementum No. 117, Vol. 112, 210 pp. (published by Blackwell Munksgaard).

No mention of RDF-S or OWL anywhere in the document; Bunge, Sowa and Guarino are referenced, in passim, but this maybe has more in common with the work of Barry Smith and others than much of the ontological research that is currently funded (cf Joseph Goguen on 'Ontology, society and ontotheology' for a perhaps different take on things: http://www.cse.ucsd.edu/users/goguen/misc/fois.html)

Contact details for Dr Dybkaer are at http://www.iupac.org/organ/members/d/dybkaer.html but see this from IUPAC's Chemistry International, 27(3) May-June 2005, specifically http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2005/2703/bw1_dybkaer.html for summary of the earlier-mentioned publication (which does not appear to be freely available via the Web), reproduced here:

Recently, one of the most distinguished scientists in laboratory medicine, Dr. René Dybkaer, defended a dissertation at the University of Copenhagen. According to Dr. Anders Kallner, former president of the Chemistry and Human Health Division, this remarkable work will have implications far beyond clinical chemistry. Dybkaer, who turned 80 recently and is still very active, was once chairman of the IUPAC Commission of Clinical Chemistry.

It is typical for scientific disciplines, such as laboratory medicine, to need to present the outcomes of examinations of a multitude of properties of many different types of objects. The special language used in each discipline is mostly found in texts on metrology, notably the International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology (VIM 1993). These sources, however, are partially conflicting, have not been established in a coherent fashion using adequate terminological procedures, and by definition relate only to quantities, ignoring all properties without magnitude.

Drawing on a variety of texts, it proves possible to form a comprehensive domain ontology around "property" with systematic definitions and terms constructed by using the tools provided in recent ISO International Standards on terminology work, supplemented by a few extra concepts to clarify the discussion. The backbone of the concept system is furnished by "system" including "component" and associated with "property", further connected by consecutive associative relations to "examination procedure", "examination", "property value", and "property value scale". The description is supplemented by "kind-of-property" to indicate a generic concept for mutually comparable properties.

>From each of these vertebral superordinate concepts, specific concepts are intensively defined and given systematic terms using the modifiers 'nominal', 'ordinal', 'differential', and 'rational'. Each of the ensuing coordinate concepts corresponds to a typical allowed mathematical and statistical treatment of the property values (i.e., fundamentally the respective applicability of the operators (=, #), (>, =, <), (+, -), and (x, :) in four increasing sets obtained by cumulation to the right.

For the narrower field of metrology, ignoring nominal properties, an alternative concept system is presented based on "quantity", which covers all properties having magnitude. The following subordinate level separates "ordinal quantity" and "unitary quantity", the latter covering in its turn the specific concepts "differential quantity" and "rational quantity".

Supplementary concepts comprise "examinand" and "measurand", "examination method" and "measurement method", "examination principle" and "measurement principle", "true property value" and "examined property value", as well as the well known "measurement", "quantity value", and "numerical value". Also "examination result" and "measurement result" with respective "examination uncertainty" and "measurement uncertainty", as well as "quantity value scale" are defined.

For differential and rational properties, the concept "metrological unit" is essential to their measurement and expression of unitary quantity values, although the term for a unit does not indicate the kind-of-quantity. Furthermore, great advantage accrues from creating a "system of metrological units", preferably a universal "coherent system of metrological units". Currently, this is the "International System of Units," SI, formed from specific concepts of "base metrological unit" (seven in all) and "coherent derived metrological unit" (a large number), with multiples and submultiples obtained by SI prefixes; these concepts are defined as well as "off-system metrological unit" and "in-system metrological unit". The lack of a special term for "metrological unit one" is discussed with support for the proposal 'uno' by the CIPM Consultative Committee for Units. The BIPM Brochure on the SI has no formal definitions, but a concept system can be inferred from the text. Its insistence that "SI unit" only comprises base and coherent derived metrological units creates practical problems; a modified concept diagram that solves them is suggested.

The further abstraction of "unitary kind-of-quantity" via "metrological unit" leads to "metrological dimension", which is a powerful tool in "dimensional analysis" based upon the defining algebraic relationship between unitary kinds-of-quantity. As is the case for metrological unit, a metrological dimension does not identify a unique corresponding unitary kind-of-quantity. Also "base metrological dimension" and "derived metrological dimension" can be defined, as well as the much discussed "derived metrological dimension one".

The designations for singular properties have been given a syntactic structure and semantic rules during 40 years of work within IUPAC, the IFCC (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine), and lately the CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation). It is proposed that the tripartite general concept comprising "system", "component", and "kind-of-property" enters into the definition of "dedicated kind-of-property". It is shown that the CEN Technical Committee 251 semantic model for definitions and terms of specific concepts utilizing generative patterns can be applied in forming representations of such dedicated kinds-of-property.

Finally, it proves possible to regard representations of individual concepts under "property" and "property value" in a mathematical and logical formalism operating according to the definition of a given dedicated kind-of-property. Examples are given for relation or function within Set Theory or Object-Oriented Analysis. The Set-Theoretical relation appears most flexible and leads to a definition of "Set-Theoretical representation of dedicated kind-of-property".

The outcome of the investigation is a concept system with definitions and systematic terms permitting unambiguous description of dedicated kinds-of-property (except those involving vectors and tensors), designations for singular properties, and examination results encountered in laboratory work.

Apparently there is an erratum at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0463.2005.apm1130211.x
but I could not link to it (it is in APMIS, vol. 113(2) p 151).

PubMed bibliographic and abstract entry is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15588029

So, somewhat off the point, but it might interest some of you who are at the heart of RDF-S work.

Al - I'll try to look at the SKOS Core documentation some time, as it's changed quite a bit since I last looked.

Best,

James


James Brooks
Thesaurus Manager
CAB International
Wallingford
Oxon, OX10 8DE, UK

Tel: +44 (0)1491 829448
Fax: +44 (0)1491 833508
Email: j.brooks@cabi.org

Visit us at www.cabi.org
	   www.cabi-bioscience.org
   www.cabi-publishing.org

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	public-esw-thes-request@w3.org [SMTP:public-esw-thes-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Miles, AJ (Alistair)
	Sent:	17 May 2005 14:47
	To:	public-esw-thes@w3.org
	Subject:	terminology basic principles


	Interesting ...

	http://www.infoterm.info/standardization/basic_principles.php

	... especially, could this help us explain the difference between RDFS/OWL ontologies & SKOS concept schemes?  

	---
	Alistair Miles
	Research Associate
	CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
	Building R1 Room 1.60
	Fermi Avenue
	Chilton
	Didcot
	Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
	United Kingdom
	Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
	Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440

	
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2005 16:17:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:53 GMT