Use Advanced Search to search the entire archive.
[jsr363-experts] Re: [Vote] Chose name for "MassDensity"
- From: "Legrand, Karen" <
>
- To: "
" <
>
- Subject: [jsr363-experts] Re: [Vote] Chose name for "MassDensity"
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 15:12:15 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
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
<
<mailto:
>>
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
<
<mailto:
>>
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
<
<mailto:
>>
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
<
<mailto:
>>
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
<
<mailto:
>>
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