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 18:02:01 +0200
Since Martin suggested to use what's in tables like
http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/section2-2.html#section2-2-1
or
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html (note, while this one lists
both "Speed" or "Velocity" it only mentions "Mass Density" here)
it would be the choice between MassDensity and just Density alone now.
So ranking 2nd choices 1/2 since the two are pretty close, we'd have
MassDensity: 3 (based on 2 primary votes)
Density: 4 (primary votes)
To avoid confusion with others and for the sake of keeping the API compact,
is there a problem to cut the list of supported quantities at "Density"
then?;-)
http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/section2-2.html#section2-2-1
Not sure, how well they get formatted via the mailing list, but listing the
remaining
surface density [image: rho]A kilogram per square metre kg/m2 specific
volume *v* cubic metre per kilogram m3/kg current density *j* ampere per
square metre A/m2 magnetic field strength *H* ampere per metre A/m amount
concentration (a
<
http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/section2-2.html#notes>),
concentration *c* mole per cubic metre mol/m3 mass concentration [image:
rho], [image: gamma] kilogram per cubic metre kg/m3 luminance *L*v candela
per square metre cd/m2 refractive index (b
<
http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/section2-2.html#notes>) *n*
one 1 relative permeability (b
<
http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/section2-2.html#notes>) r
one 1
also see
https://java.net/jira/browse/UNITSOFMEASUREMENT-100
are there any you could not live without in the API?
Wikipedia lists the Base Units:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Base_units
and then Derived Units:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Derived_units
which are exactly those 22 all other tables have in common.
No "Examples of other derived units", so as Jean-Marie and others proposed
we include more than the 30 (7+22+Dimensionless) the question is which
"examples" really make sense.
I could imagine up to 6 more, which are
- Area
- Volume
- Speed
- Acceleration
- WaveNumber
- Density (formerly known as MassDensity or VolumetricDensity ;-)
Are there any of those you'd drop from the API?
They won't go away. There is a limited but much larger possible number of
quantities in the "si-units" module and where they don't fit into SI at all
"uom-systems" has another place. Quantities should be reusable, so while
there could be different implementations e.g. UCUM, oBIX, Common (a
collection of common systems like USCustomary, Imperial, etc., or separate
them?) as well as other possible unit systems, their quantities should be
exchangeable, at least within all sub-modules. See the diagram in
https://java.net/jira/browse/UNITSOFMEASUREMENT-121
Thanks,
Werner
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Legrand, Karen
<
>
wrote:
>
After thinking about it, I think Chris's argument is correct. I would
>
like to change my vote from VolumetricMassDensity to Density.
>
----- Reply message -----
>
From: "Chris Senior"
>
<
>
>
To:
>
"
"
>
<
>
>
>
Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: [Vote] Chose name for "MassDensity"
>
Date: Mon, Jun 8, 2015 5:13 PM
>
>
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
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>
>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>