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: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:58:01 +0200
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
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
>