-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
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
Uncertainty #52
Comments
Thanks Hajo, to kick things off: 1. Foundation References for Measurement Uncertainty
2. Tolerance 3. My Goal
4. My Current Position 5. Example 6. Next Steps
I also hope to discuss representing the (initial) purpose of the measure (but that may be best done in a separate thread). Regards, AL. |
Hi Al, Thanks for this overview! I think the sources you've mentioned are very suitable to base our design on. I've looked at GUM and VIM before, but it's been a very long time, and now that I'm looking at it again, I realize it will be quite a study. If you could summarize the different ways to represent uncertainty, and find implementations, that would really be great! In the meantime, I've been thinking. We now have the measure in OM (om:Measure). It has a numerical value (om:hasNumericalValue) and a unit (om:hasUnit). This is actually the simplest measure one can think of. So, in the future we would like to define more complex types. We will therefore have to reserve the term om:Measure as an umbrella term for all the different types of measures that will be introduced. We should perhaps call the mentioned simple measure: om:SimpleMeasure. There will for example also be an om:CompoundMeasure. It would consist of several other measures, usually simple measures such as in the case of 5 foot 10 (inch). om:CompoundMeasure should then, I think, only have one property, with a cardinality > 1: om:hasMeasure. For example, the compound measure 5 foot 10 could then be defined as follows: :_5Foot10 The min-mean-max measure may need to have the following properties:
Or, if we would like to permit min, mean, and max to each have its own unit:
Another point: om:hasNumericalValue is currently of datatype string, so anyone is free to specify a number, range, list of numbers, or whatever. In the future I think we should use xsd number datatypes. Then we may get different kinds of measures, like in the case of the om:SimpleMeasure:
I'm not sure, but it's one of my thoughts. Hopefully the above will help us in our thoughts and design processes. Best, Hajo |
P.S.: Proposal (from my side) for a measure representing a mean and a standard deviation: om:MeanStandardDeviationMeasure, with properties:
|
New issue to progress the topic of 'Uncertainty' raised at Complex units (#51).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: