On Dec 14, 12:31*am, tom wrote:
On 12/12/2010 7:44 PM, Art Unwin wrote:
snip





Metadata is just a expanded project for archival analysis. It is not
intended to revise language
in various countries so scientific works and patent will not be
withdrawn by non conformance with the program by being termed
"meaningless" with respect to the new project.
The project has had numorous changes and revisions and certainly has
not yet arrived in its final form in libraries and archival uses in
computer programs There are no plans as yet to announce that most
scientific data is to be revised or declared illegal , patents
overturned etc Or the institution of such projects where computer
language will be taught in schools as a globalization of the new
speech or verbal communication of the day in the way Fortran was once
considered since thinkers of the computer era are still in a state of
flux as to what should be imposed and who has the authority to change.
There will be many enforcement programmers milling around to spread
virus regarding the program but generally these self appointed
programmers and the like are just trying to impose a new regime on the
public at hand via the imposition
of expansion regulations in a global fashion

Folks, I think he's about due for a week or 3 disappearance again. *The
white coated men can't be far away.

tom
K0TAR

yeah, that's pretty far over the top even for art.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:14:19 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 08:34:39 -0500, Registered User
wrote:

The phrase "80% antenna efficiency"
contains both a unitless number and dimensional metadata.

Actually, it doesn't - you are filling in the blanks with presumption.
Given that "efficiency" has been hijacked, the phrase above could as
easily relate to wind load.

Precisely why metadata is so important to describe data.The generic
term 'antenna efficiency' does not provide enough metadata to describe
the true meaning of the measure. Some additional metadata turns the
potentially ambiguous "80% antenna efficiency" into "the antenna's
radiated power divided by its input power results in a percentage of
80%"

80% survival rate at 100 mph. I could
well anticipate the counter-argument that "antenna efficiency" as you
intend it is power based, and I would counter-counter that power
delivered to the end user is far below 80% by 6 to 9 orders of
magnitude. There is nothing efficient about 79.999999% of the power
warming clouds and worms. HOWEVER, if the intended recipient receives
even that miniscule power with full quieting, then it is in fact 100%
efficient. In that regard, 80% and 100% as figures become meaningless
when they are both applied to the same statement of efficiency.

In this case
the metadata describes the dimensional calculation used to produce the
result. Remove the dimensional metadata and the phrase becomes "80%".

No, efficiency in engineering terms has always been well understood
and does not embrace this adornment.

There are many different expressions that calculate efficiency, so
wouldn't the adornment be the context aka metadata which describes the
expression used to calculate the result? If I write "80% efficiency"on
a piece of paper and hand it to an engineer, how can the engineer know
what is 80% efficient without any metadata being provided?

In an earlier posting I've seen
the distinction of miles-per-gallon and passenger-miles-per-gallon
stretched over the argument to fit it to efficiency. No, these two
comparisons (and what you largely characterize as the need to include
Metadata) are "figure of merit" measures. FOM is also dimensionless
but demands the Metadata you speak of.

The last sentence tells me you get it. 80% is a FOM with no UOM so for
the value to have meaning metadata must be provided.

FOM could easily lead you into a very energy (the engineering
consideration) inefficient solution (due to social or economic
considerations, eg. passenger-miles-per-gallon).


The whole purpose of data analysis is to aid in effective decision
making. Pretty much every decision requires some sort of trade-off.
By analyzing and reporting upon the expression results that different
combinations of dimension values provide, more information can be
provided the decision makers. The decision makers are the ones who
specify what data they wish to view (both dimensional data and the
results of multi-dimensional expressions) and the ways they wish to
view that data. All that information is placed in a multi-dimensional
cube. The decision makers can slice and dice the cube data into how
they want to view the data and determine relative FOMs for multiple
scenarios. Their questions are which scenario model is most suitable
and does the most suitable scenario provide a valid solution for the
problem.

AFA the passenger-miles-per-gallon calculation, the decision makers
could decide that more information is needed in terms of greater
granularity. Changing the granularity to stop-by-stop and providing
associated passenger and fuel consumption statistics will deliver more
information. The decision makers could also ask for data that
provides social and economic information. The multidimensional PMPG
expression could be changed to include the social and economic data.
More data and metadata provides more information.

The form of desired social and economic data and how it is to be used
in expressions is something the decision makers must determine. All
the information about required cube dimensions, attributes,
hierarchies, expressions, etc, are determined by the decision makers.
Those who build and load the structure have little say in the matter,
the decision makers decide what data and metadata is useful for their
analysis.

An image of a simple multi-dimensional cube can be seen at
http://books.google.com/books?id=AFC...page&q&f=false
or
http://tinyurl.com/337m42z

Each dimensional intersection uses the same multi-dimensional
expression (MDX) to provide a result. The UOM at each intersection is
the same (dollars) but the results differ because different sets of
dimensional arguments are used in the MDX. The amount $3,156,834 is
raw data but the cube tells us it represents total sales for the
Mythic World product in 2005. That metadata must be used to describe
the result if that value is to be used away from the cube.

Change that cube's dimensions and the values they contain to be
antenna-related, add a few more antenna-related dimensions and
attributes, create some expressions that use dimension values to
provide appropriate measures and the structure could be used for
antenna analysis.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:29:24 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:

You can call it meaningless babble but in its simplest form
dimensional metadata provides meaning and additional information to
raw data.

Yes, meaningless babble.

The phrase "antenna efficiency is 80%" says everything you need to know.

The phrase "antenna efficiency" is non-dimensional metadata
and to quote Mr. Clark
-quote-
Given that "efficiency" has been hijacked, the phrase above could as
easily relate to wind load.
-end quote-

The phrase "engine efficiency is 35%" says everything yoy need to know.

You assume that engine efficiency is only and always measured in terms
of energy efficiency. Engine efficiency can mean different things to
different people. There are other expression which are also used to
calculate engine efficiency including fuel economy, power-to-weight
ratio, and power-to-displacement ratio. The respective UOMs for those
measures can be expressed as miles per gallon, hp/lb. and hp/cid. For
these calculated measures "engine efficiency is 35%" is not suitable
result.

And if antennas is the topic to begin with, the phrase "efficiency is 80%"
says everything you need to know.

No "dimensional metadata" required.

Non-dimensional metadata (antennas) is provided as the topic and the
result contains non-dimensional metadata (efficiency) as well. As Mr.
Clark pointed out "antenna efficiency" is a potentially ambiguous
phrase. Such ambiguity can be eliminated by using dimensional metadata
e.g. antenna efficiency calculated as the ratio of power radiated to
input power. With the measure qualified as such an individual reading
a summarized report doesn't have to be party to yesterday's discussion
or know the exact expression used in the calculation or infer meaning
from ambiguous metadata such as "antenna efficiency". The phrase "80%
antenna efficiency calculated as the ratio of power radiated to input
power" explicitly provides the proper meaning to the calculated
result.

Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:29:24 -0000, wrote:

Registered User wrote:

You can call it meaningless babble but in its simplest form
dimensional metadata provides meaning and additional information to
raw data.

Yes, meaningless babble.

The phrase "antenna efficiency is 80%" says everything you need to know.

The phrase "antenna efficiency" is non-dimensional metadata
and to quote Mr. Clark
-quote-
Given that "efficiency" has been hijacked, the phrase above could as
easily relate to wind load.
-end quote-

The phrase "engine efficiency is 35%" says everything yoy need to know.

You assume that engine efficiency is only and always measured in terms
of energy efficiency.

Of course it is, that is basic physics and the definition.

Other things are other things and have qualifiers, especially if they use
the word "efficiency", otherwise it is just ignorant babble.

snip babble

And if antennas is the topic to begin with, the phrase "efficiency is 80%"
says everything you need to know.

No "dimensional metadata" required.

Non-dimensional metadata (antennas) is provided as the topic and the
result contains non-dimensional metadata (efficiency) as well.

The phrase in question is "dimensional metadata" and now you are switching
the subject to "non-dimensional metadata".

As Mr.
Clark pointed out "antenna efficiency" is a potentially ambiguous
phrase. Such ambiguity can be eliminated by using dimensional metadata
e.g. antenna efficiency calculated as the ratio of power radiated to
input power.

The definition of antenna efficiency is the "ratio of power radiated to
input power", so stating that is redundant.

snip more babble

I suppose you argue with writers of recipes when they say "add 1 cup of milk"
saying they should say "pour milk into a measuring cup, that is a cup used for
measuring liquids, until the milk level, that is the level in the measuring
cup, reaches the mark on the measuring that denotes the meauring cup contains
1 fluid cup, in this case the milk, then pour the contents of the measuring
cup into..".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Registered User wrote:

Precisely why metadata is so important to describe data.The generic
term 'antenna efficiency' does not provide enough metadata to describe
the true meaning of the measure.

Only if you are an ignorant twit that doesn't understand the definition
of "antenna efficiency" and has to have the definition spelled out to
him each and every time.

snip babble

There are many different expressions that calculate efficiency, so
wouldn't the adornment be the context aka metadata which describes the
expression used to calculate the result? If I write "80% efficiency"on
a piece of paper and hand it to an engineer, how can the engineer know
what is 80% efficient without any metadata being provided?

The engineer would use the context under which the number was provided.

If there were no context the engineer would be justified in concluding that
you were a babbling mental case.

snip long winded, grandiose babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?
Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.
Antenna efficiency can be measured in different ways so the phrase
"antenna efficiency is 20%" can mean different things to different
people. All it takes is one person to ask how antenna efficiency is
calculated and it will become evident that context of "antenna
efficiency is 20%" does not provide all the information required.

When the result's context includes dimensional metadata such as "20%
antenna efficiency calculated as the ratio of power radiated to input
power" the meaning of the result and how it was calculated both are
self-evident. Everyone knows what the result means because the
dimensional metadata provides an exact definition. A mere ten words of
dimensional metadata adds succinct clarity to the result. What makes
such clarity unnecessary and/or undesirable?

On Dec 14, 5:02*am, Registered User wrote:


When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.
Antenna efficiency can be measured in different ways so the phrase
"antenna efficiency is 20%" can mean different things to different
people. All it takes is one person to ask how antenna efficiency is
calculated and it will become evident that context of "antenna
efficiency is 20%" does not provide all the information required.

Sure it does. Antenna efficiency is only calculated one way,
so there is no need to add extra "metadata".
Like one said, it's redundant. In the real world, most will
calculate the efficiency of the antenna system as a whole.
Not just the radiating element/s. Even a very small dipole
vs wavelength will radiate nearly all power that is applied to it.
The trick is actually getting the power to it without it turning to
heat.
So most will calculate the whole system, otherwise it's
fairly pointless. But the efficiency of even a whole system is
still calculated the same way, and no extra "metadata" is
required to calculate. It's still the ratio between the output of the
transmitter, vs the RF actually radiated. It's been that way
since they invented dirt, so who needs metadata? I sure don't.

I'm starting to think it must be a full moon...
It's been getting pretty silly around here lately.. :/

Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

snip long winded babble


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 14, 4:54*pm, wrote:
Registered User wrote:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:51:07 -0000, wrote:

Have you the slightest clue what the word "context" means?

Absolutely, yes I do. In turn I will ask do you know what metadata is?

Yes, and I also know what ice cream is, both of which are irrelevant to
the discussion.

Both dimensional and non-dimensional metadata provide context.
Non-dimensional metadata doesn't always provide the complete context.
Dimensional metadata provides greater context because it conveys more
detailed and specific information.

Only an ignorant, anal retentive git would think that basic terminology has
to be defined each and every time it is used.

"Antenna efficiency is 20%" has all the information required and if the
discussion is about antennas, "efficiency is 20%" has all the information
required.

When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.

The term "antenna efficiency" has a unique and unambigous definition and
can be found in any textbook on electromagnetics.

really? i don't see either 'efficiency' or 'antenna efficiency' in
either my 2nd edition of jackson's classical electrodynamics, or
ramo,whinnery, and van duzer's fields and waves in communication
electronics... if you know where those terms might be defined in
either of those please let me know, maybe the indexes aren't complete
or something.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:37:25 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 14, 5:02*am, Registered User wrote:


When data gets shared among multiple parties it is important that a
ubiquitous language is used to describe the data and its meaning.
Antenna efficiency can be measured in different ways so the phrase
"antenna efficiency is 20%" can mean different things to different
people. All it takes is one person to ask how antenna efficiency is
calculated and it will become evident that context of "antenna
efficiency is 20%" does not provide all the information required.

Sure it does. Antenna efficiency is only calculated one way,
so there is no need to add extra "metadata".

Funny thing, when working parabolic antennas antenna efficiency and
aperture efficiency are used interchangeably.