On Dec 14, 10:54*am, 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.

snip long winded babble

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Gentlemen
This metadata project is only about substituting a machine for a human
being. Human beings have a brain and it is not necessary to overload a
brain with information that the brain does not require to function.

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*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.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

On Dec 14, 5:02Â*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.



Regisered User and some other guy arrive at a gas station at the same time.

Other guy: "Fill'er up."

Regisered User: "Remove the gas cap, that is the covering device on the gas
tank, that is the tank, which is an enclosure, which holds the gasoline for
this car, that is a private passenger vehicle, and dispense gasoline from
your pump, that is the mechanism that dispenses gasoline, into the tank,
that is the tank intended to hold gasoline, until the fluid, in this case
gasoline, level, which is the fluid air, which is 78.1% nitorgen, 20.9%
oxygen, 0.9% argon and less than .1% other trace gases, interface, which
forms because we are on a planet with positive gravity, reaches the top,
that is the uppper most part, of the gasoline tank which holds the gasoline."

This is followed by a 20 minute dissertation on which way to turn the gas
cap to get it on and off, an explanation of how the percentages of the
various gasses than make up air are measured, the origin and history of
the gallon, and the value of the dollar relative to a loaf of bread in 1937.


--
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 Dec 14, 6:41*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
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.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

well, i kept looking.. arrl antenna book doesn't have it, but mine is
rather old maybe more recent ones have it.

aha! found efficiency in the ieee handbook of antenna design... but
it has subtopics:
aperture
beam
cassegrain
cross-polar
depolarisation in offset reflectors
illumination
offset antennas
polarisation
radiation

now exactly which definition do you consider the 'unique and
unambiguous' one??

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*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.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 21:38:19 -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.

So, by this you agree that your original metadata was not useful. As
for it being "dimensional" there was nothing dimensional expressed nor
offered by you afterward in further elaboration.

The whole purpose of data analysis is to aid in effective decision
making.

Metadata is useful in Figure of Merit and such is the entirety of your
argument.

Unfortunately, the only thing revealed here is that your metadata is a
portmanteau word covering an infinite regression of refining
statements. We would be better served in consideration of the Figure
of Merit side of the discussion where many could easily discard a lot
of metadata deadwood.

That is the practice of engineering.

Compounding unfortune, Art is incapable of providing weighted values
to make progress in any discussion. There is no Figure of Merit
consideration, there is only the combinatorial explosion of
possibilities. That has lead us through the dimensions of 180 meter
wavelengths to the sub nanometer relativistic effects of nuclear
physics - all treated with equal importance such that practicality has
been debased.

This is the Art of science fiction, metaphysics, or religion.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 6:41Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*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? Â*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.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

well, i kept looking.. arrl antenna book doesn't have it, but mine is
rather old maybe more recent ones have it.

aha! found efficiency in the ieee handbook of antenna design... but
it has subtopics:
aperture
beam
cassegrain
cross-polar
depolarisation in offset reflectors
illumination
offset antennas
polarisation
radiation

now exactly which definition do you consider the 'unique and
unambiguous' one??

The one that one normally means when not using a qualifier, radiation.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Dec 14, 8:10*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
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.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:10Â*pm, wrote:
K1TTT wrote:
On Dec 14, 4:54Â*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? Â*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.

First book I pick up, Electromagnetics by Kraus and Carver.

So change "any textbook" to "many textbooks".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

but your basic point still fails... the definition of efficiency is
not universal, unique, nor unambiguous since it is not in ALL
textbooks, nor is it a simple single definition, as my list of
qualifiers in the ieee handbook illustrates.... oh, and those many
definitions are not just restating the same thing, they are VERY
different definitions depending on the aspect of the antenna you are
studying.

The fact that it is not in all textbooks is irrelvant.

Not everything is in all textbooks of any kind.

There are many scientific and engineering terms that can have qualifiers
to denote specificity.

And in most every case there is a qualified term that is in most common
use and is commonly used without the qualifier.

Every engineer I know when discusssing antennas in general that say "antenna
efficieny" mean "antenna radiation efficiency".

The ARRL Antenna Handbook, when talking about "antenna efficieny", refers
to "antenna radiation efficiency".

For most of the links of the 7,000,000 or so when you search for "antenna
efficieny" you come to a link that refers to "antenna radiation efficiency".



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.