A plehtora of Quantities

[Guy Rixon]

David,

I think it's a bit more than labelling.  Call them A and B if you like, but B
is a wider issue than A and needs more structure and subtlety. Imposing this
extra material on A is a problem.

Cheers,
Guy

On Fri, 14 May 2004, David Berry wrote:

> Guy,
>
> > > Not really- I think the idea is that the "list inside the Quantity" more
> > > closely reflects the general case where you have a whole list of *values*
> > > for a single (possibly compound) *phenomenon*. So a Quantity contains a
> > > "list of values" (the ValuesList of Mapping) and a description of the
> > > single phenomenon (the Frame).
> >
> > OK, I understand.  But if we're modelling Phenomemon, then that's a different
> > and much bigger thing than Quantity.  Can we have a nice, simple Quanitity as
> > a separate product?
>
> Language is a problem - telepathy is what we need! Yes, we need both
> things, but what shall we call them? Maybe we should drop the Q word
> altogether and use "Value" and "Array" instead. The song "I say potato
> and you say potato" springs to mind (but lets not "call the whole thing
> off"!).
>
> David
>

Guy Rixon 				        gtr at ast.cam.ac.uk
Institute of Astronomy   	                Tel: +44-1223-337542
Madingley Road, Cambridge, UK, CB3 0HA		Fax: +44-1223-337523