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: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 18:27:00 +0200
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)
2. Density: 2 votes
3. 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
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>
>
>
>