Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: [Vote] Chose name for "MassDensity"
- From: Werner Keil <
>
- To:
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: [Vote] Chose name for "MassDensity"
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 01:19:39 +0200
It's a bit late for that Ticket, but why not ask around at Hackergarten;-)
Am 08.06.2015 23:13 schrieb "Chris Senior"
<
>:
>
I may be too late (been on holiday)... but for what it's worth;
>
>
I think VolumetricMassDensity is the most explicit (at the cost of 10 more
>
chars).
>
>
But for 9 out of 10 applications (probably higher) just "Density" would
>
suffice. Other applications may always claim XyzDensity for their special
>
cases...
>
>
So I am +1 for Density.
>
>
On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 at 17:27 Werner Keil
>
<
>
>
wrote:
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> There's been no change, so as of now, we have
>
>
>
> 1. MassDensity: 4 votes (even with 2nd vote split it would be 3)
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. Density: 2 votes
>
> 2. VolumetricMassDensity: 1 vote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The closing of the vote is overdue, I should be able to apply it later
>
> today.
>
> Until we go Final there is still room for discussion, but we should not
>
> spend too much time with a single class.
>
> Will be interesting to hear what people say during the next Hackergarten
>
> events.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Werner Keil
>
> <
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Dear Experts,
>
>>
>
>> After a nice demo of JSR 363 on the Intel Edison during IoT MeetUp
>
>> Zurich last night (
>
>> http://www.meetup.com/IoT-Zurich/events/221858206/?a=uc1_vm&read=1&_af=event&_af_eid=221858206)
>
>> some questions by the audience also referred to the quantities the
>
>> Spec/API
>
>> would support out of the box. I explained we aim for "~30" based on
>
>> BIPM/NIST or similar SI standard catalogues, leaving a "Full SI" or other
>
>> more extensive catalogues e.g. UCUM to extension modules. They seemed
>
>> happy
>
>> with that approach.
>
>>
>
>> Regarding UOM-9, we got
>
>>
>
>> 1. MassDensity: 4 votes (at least 3 if you split the 2nd choice in
>
>> half)
>
>> 2. Density: 2 votes
>
>> 3. VolumetricMassDensity: 1 vote
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> I know at least here it's wonderful weather outside, but if you still
>
>> have opinions on this vote, please cast your vote by the end of the week.
>
>> On Saturday there's Umwelttag (Environment Day) Bern. I may visit some
>
>> of the expositions by smart energy providers to see, what they do and if
>
>> they know the likes of Opower (where our APIs are used together with JSON
>
>> Binding already;-) No later than Sunday the name that got most votes by
>
>> then shall be applied. If there's huge demand for another change nothing
>
>> is
>
>> written in stone before Final, but we gotta close some of these JIRA
>
>> tickets, especially if they are as old as the 9th one filed;-)
>
>>
>
>> Thanks,
>
>>
>
>> Werner
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Werner Keil
>
>> <
>
>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> Dear Experts,
>
>>>
>
>>> Those who have not voted yet, please try to do so before the end of the
>
>>> week.
>
>>> I hope to get most of the current changes into the next RC of the API:
>
>>> https://java.net/jira/browse/UNITSOFMEASUREMENT/fixforversion/17310/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects-plugin:version-summary-panel
>
>>> It should be the basis for further discussion and "hacking" especially
>
>>> at the 2 Hackergarten events in Nuremberg and London. If necessary we
>
>>> might
>
>>> add another RC, essentially the goal is to stabilize the API for Public
>
>>> Draft (0.8) due roughly around JavaOne
>
>>> https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2_9#1.3 states, in theory we have up
>
>>> to late December (12 months after filing EDR) but a Public Draft may also
>
>>> be repeated, see JSR 354, so it seems good to aim for either just before
>
>>> or
>
>>> right after JavaOne (also depending on PMO's capacity around that time,
>
>>> e.g. we might file it after based on further input by Hackergarten ;-)
>
>>>
>
>>> Given the infamous "Table 2" is pretty much a list of "examples" and
>
>>> not a binding definitive list, should you think any "Density" type was
>
>>> too
>
>>> specific or rarely used, feel free to also vote for dropping it
>
>>> (e.g. "-1 VolumetricDensity" or "+1 Just drop it")
>
>>>
>
>>> Thanks,
>
>>> Werner
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 1:10 AM, Werner Keil
>
>>> <
>
>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>
>
>>>> Well the original issue also asked why "Mass Density" is not there
>
>>>> (though it was and currently is under the term "Volumetric Density")
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Google does not help that much, if you enter "volumetric mass density"
>
>>>> you only get 5860 results, leaving the quotes it's 188.000.000, so
>
>>>> nearly
>
>>>> 90 Mio. more than the example you mentioned. Karen's argument has a
>
>>>> point,
>
>>>> we do not need to be stingy about characters and it would be the most
>
>>>> distinct (though except Wikipedia it seems less quoted)
>
>>>>
>
>>>> There are other examples where those tables or other sources mention 2
>
>>>> or more terms, "Speed" vs. "Velocity" (we changed to "Speed" from the
>
>>>> latter) or "Length" vs. "Distance".
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Let's see, what everyone thinks, we have 5 out of 9 EG members who
>
>>>> voted for 3 terms as their 1st or 2nd choice.
>
>>>> Note, while not subject of UOM-9, referring to e.g. the BIPM section,
>
>>>> it leaves the question which of thest quantities are really needed by a
>
>>>> wide enough user base.
>
>>>> "SurfaceDensity", "CurrentDensity", would we add them regardless of
>
>>>> "the other" density, or stick to just one? Table 2.2.1 is an EXAMPLE,
>
>>>> each
>
>>>> group has different priorities, e.g. NIST a few less than BIPM. Only the
>
>>>> 22+7 are clearly defined and common to every listing and organization.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> Again, let's solve UOM-9 first.
>
>>>>
>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Martin Desruisseaux <
>
>>>>
>
>
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>> Hello Werner
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Le 01/06/15 23:46, Werner Keil a écrit :
>
>>>>> > Thanks for your vote. Except for this table which is a little tricky
>
>>>>> > because it says "Examples" the other two are exactly identical in
>
>>>>> the
>
>>>>> > NIST site. The only system specific to the US isn't even SI, so they
>
>>>>> > all quote the same common source.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> I realize that NIST tables are almost identical to BIPM, but this is
>
>>>>> like saying that a slightly modified copy of a document is almost
>
>>>>> identical to the original. In my understanding BIPM still the
>
>>>>> authoritative source, and NIST is an adaptation done by USA for their
>
>>>>> own work (even if they intentionally try to stay close to the
>
>>>>> original).
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> > As there are at least two other *Density quantities in that table of
>
>>>>> > examples I would not simply call it Density.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> The same could be said about other quantities, for example
>
>>>>> "PlaneAngle"
>
>>>>> versus "SolidAngle". But since "Angle" is widely understood as plane
>
>>>>> angle, it seems safe to use the simpler term.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> I think that a similar reasoning could be applied to "density". During
>
>>>>> my 3 years of studies in physics at the university, I do not remember
>
>>>>> having hear "mass density" for the quantity of kg/m3. For what it is
>
>>>>> worth, a search on Google give:
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> physics "mass density": 537,000 hits
>
>>>>> physics mass density: 115,000,000 hits (note the absence of quote). A
>
>>>>> quick view of the first hits show that they are really talking about
>
>>>>> the
>
>>>>> quantity of kg/m3.
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Even if other kind of density exits, I think that "density" is widely
>
>>>>> understood as "mass density".
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>> Martin
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>