Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Re: [humanmarkup] Base Schema - measurement-part 2

["Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@netsmart.gr>]

Hi James,

Absolutelly. We need a hierarchy composed of abstract properties to be 
used as a toolkit for totally subjective measurments; such an approach 
is the only way to provide reusable base for vertical applications (== 
subjective).

I would be interested to hear opinions on whether doing such a hierarchy 
should climb to the point where properties are aware of types such as 
primitives (as known from programming languages) or even further.

Personally, I would favour implementation-independent ranges (types) for 
these properties to be aware of. Sets for example (such RGB color 
values). Such design techniques can proove usefull to fallback 
mechanisms without having to deal with 
platform/implementation/application specific requierments.

If one needs XSD like types, he/she can always import them and extend 
them; we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Let's try to inovate a little...

Regards,

Manos



James Landrum wrote:

> Point here is that "measurement" is not the same as "measurement_unit"
> Measurement is the action of measuring or the result of applying a 
> unit of measure to an object or subject, based on a measurement 
> standard (or measurement_unit), expressed most often numerically, 
> i.e., quantitatively, and more often these are scientifically 
> "objective" data.  Measurement can can also be expressed 
> qualitatively, e.g., high, medium, low, short, long, happy, sad, 
> depressed, manic, etc., and the qualitative measurement is often more 
> subjective, rather than objective.