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

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

My apologies for not answering this yesterday.

Yes, the bibliography issue is one that is part of the agenda for 
today's meeting. OASIS has been issuing a set of updated requirements 
which I have been reviewing to see if there are particular 
requirements that we need to be informed about. Unfortunately the 
details of the approval process changes have not yet been provided on 
the OASIS website, so I have been unable to come to a satisfactory 
conclusion about that and how or if it affects our work and the work 
of the Web Services for Interactive Applications TC, to which I also 
belong and for which I do the webmastering, too. I don't think there 
is anything that we need to be aware of today. In any event, the 
issue of the Bibliographical and cross-standards references I would 
like to codify are not yet clear in terms of what is approvable. We 
will discuss it.

Ciao,
Rex

At 4:15 PM -0500 9/17/02, James Landrum wrote:
>Yes on this post and also in response to other post about adding 
>measurement to agenda- good idea, along with all the rest- plus, 
>weren't you planning on adding bibliography item to the agenda?
>
>One thing to consider is the arbitrary and often researcher specific 
>tendencies that influence the scope and scale of measurement and 
>choice of measurement_units, and note also that it is not uncommon 
>for social scientists to codify the subjective content and 
>"scientificize" their data, e.g., good = 1, bad = 0, etc., but I 
>don't think that we should worry about that here, just mentioning it 
>for future consideration.
>Measurements have context specific properties and the  numeric 
>(e.g., 1-n) values and the Measurement_Units (e.g., centimeters, 
>millimeters,milligrams, or whatever) applied are much more easily 
>compartmentalized than are the other sort. Perhaps best to start 
>discussion with focus on the numeric and,  measurement_unit 
>standards for weights and measures. Then we can do an overview on 
>the more subjective qualitative measurement issues.  These are, as 
>always, just suggestions.
>
>Emmanuil Batsis (Manos) wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>From the Desk of James E. Landrum III
>Database Manager
>Archaeology Technologies Laboratory (ATL; http://atl.ndsu.edu)
>Digital Archive Network for Anthropology (DANA; http://atl.ndsu.edu/archive)
>North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105
>Ph: 701-231-7115 (my desk) and ATL 701-231-6434
>FAX: 701-231-1047
>email: james.landrum@ndsu.nodak.edu


-- 
Rex Brooks
Starbourne Communications Design
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA 94702 *510-849-2309
http://www.starbourne.com * rexb@starbourne.com