![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I'll repeat here some concerns I raised when this material was at
International System of Units and still have now that we've moved the material here, restoring and expanding this article. The earlier discussion among myself,
Dondervogel 2 and
Quondum is at
Talk:International System of Units/Archives/05/2015#ISQ again.
I fear
Dondervogel 2's assessment of the primary sources has inherent errors in the sections
International System of Quantities#Quantities of the ISQ and
International System of Quantities#Units of the ISQ.
In parts 3 to 14 of this International Standard, the quantities and relations among them, which are a subset of the ISQ, are given on the left-hand pages, and the units of the SI (and some other units) are given on the right-hand pages. Some additional quantities and units are also given on the left-hand and right-hand pages, respectively.
ISQ is a shorthand notation for the “system of quantities on which the SI is based”, which was the phrase used for this system in ISO 31.
In the ISO and IEC 80000 series the quantities and equations used with the SI are known as the International System of Quantities
I think this means we have to edit the article, either to make it clear that some of the quantities and all of the units mentioned are not part of ISQ, or to simply remove them as out of scope. I'm tending to the latter, especially given that we have an article on ISO 80000 already. What do others think? NebY ( talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The author(s) of these words surely intended the scope of the ISQ to cover all of ISO/IEC 80000, and possibly beyond. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 22:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)The system of quantities, including the relations among them the quantities used as the basis of the units of the SI, is named the International System of Quantities, denoted “ISQ”, in all languages. This name was not used in ISO 31, from which the present harmonized series has evolved. However, ISQ does appear in ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007 and in the SI Brochure [8], Edition 8:2006. In both cases, this was to ensure consistency with the new Quantities and units series that was under preparation at the time they were published; it had already been announced that the new term would be used. It should be realized, however, that ISQ is simply a convenient notation to assign to the essentially infinite and continually evolving and expanding system of quantities and equations on which all of modern science and technology rests. ISQ is a shorthand notation for the “system of quantities on which the SI is based”, which was the phrase used for this system in ISO 31.
Under the Base Quantities section, it says, "The conventional symbolic representation of the dimension of a base quantity is a single upper-case letter in roman (upright) sans-serif type."
Does it actually have to be sans-serif? Considering the heavy usage of serif fonts in official documentation of most organisations (the default "professional" font style in businesses, nonprofits, etc. is most often Times New Roman), I find it somewhat difficult to believe that serif font styles would not be allowed under at the *very* least most circumstances.
– SarahTehCat ( talk) 21:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 22:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)The conventional symbolic representation of the dimension of a base quantity is a single upper case letter in roman (upright) type. The conventional symbolic representation of the dimension of a derived quantity is the product of powers of the dimensions of the base quantities according to the definition of the derived quantity.
Here's a screenshot. It's very clearly there. Base Quantities > 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. [2] – SarahTehCat ( talk) 17:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Good idea, Dondervogel 2 – SarahTehCat ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Logarithmic quantities and levels are defined in ISO 80000-3:2007 § 0.5 in reasonably pleasing detail. Indispensable to the definition of a level as defined in the ISQ is the definition of a 'field quantity' and a 'power quantity' (this is IMO unfortunate historical baggage, but c'est la vie). The article is currently inaccurate, since it does not capture this distinction, which conditionally selects the applicable formula. To quote, "a field quantity is defined as a quantity whose square is proportional to power when it acts on a linear system", and further, "Meaningful measures of power quantities generally require time averaging to form a mean-square value that is proportional to power. Corresponding field quantities may then be obtained as the root-mean-square value."
This hobbled definition is stopping me from simply rewriting this. (What could have become a beautiful system has hung onto some utter abominations.) But maybe I'll get to rewording the section, since ISO 80000:3 does a sterling job of retrospective description in this case, within the historical constraints. — Quondum 17:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I wish to challenge the statement
I think we have the conceptualization of the ISQ entirely back-to-front. ISO 80000 does not define the ISQ, but rather an interpretation of parts of it. The SI is based on the ISQ, which is in some sense informal, but ISO has no authority over the SI. We need to completely separate the concepts of ISQ and ISO 80000. — Quondum 18:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This request essentially follows on from the discussion above. The claim of a lack of formal basis may be considered to be overly strong, but the gist is that citations show that the ISQ is not the same thing as and is only partly formalized in ISO 80000: the ISQ is inherently incompletely defined, it is not circumscribed, is continually evolving, and is essentially defined as what is generally accepted as opposed to what is fully defined by a formal definition. ISO 80000 can be seen as a formalization of parts of the ISQ, but I do not think one can call it a "formal basis for the ISQ". Some quotations:
(It may be noted that ISO 80000-1:2009 is self-contradictory in this respect: the two quoted extracts above are mutually inconsistent (if one takes §3.6 to be circumscribing rather than descriptive of a minimal inclusion).) One could say that the system of base and derived quantities in the ISQ is formalized by ISO 80000. We could revise the statement "The ISQ does not have a formal basis" to read something more directly derivable from the sources, such as "The ISQ is not a formal or fully defined system." — Quondum 13:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
This article repeatedly uses the word being defined within the definition. For example in Paragraph 1 Line 1, "The Interntional System of Quantities (ISQ) is a system of quantities..." Again under the heading Base Quantity: "A base quantity is a physical quantity..." This is like saying an apple is defined as an apple. Not informative. Not helpful to young readers. Poor grammar, and run-on sentences at several locations lead to significant confusion for an experienced reader to understand the main point in the article, which is believed to be a presentation of the organizational hierarchy described among different organizations, I think! The net result is a confusing article with no premise and no conclusion, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprainville ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
( ←) Dondervogel, I tend to make some inferences from the changes that I have seen. A significant observation is that SI and ISO have omitted almost all mention of logarithmic quantities, as though they belatedly realized that including half-baked stuff attempting to turn the historical mishmash into a standard is worse than no standard. To produce a consistent set of definitions requires actually ditching the inconsistencies, which is not easy. The SI saw some debate around historical baggage around angle, which in the end had no effect: the status quo remained. In contrast, I haven't noticed any significant debate about the tougher area of level and its units, and suddenly materializing something untested by robust debate is a recipe for disaster. My bet is that we will not get anything but a very trimmed version of what we had before, or that it will simply not materialize for many years to come. What is unclear about the relationship between the shannon (aka bit) and the nat? — Quondum 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I see that a draft of VIM4 is accessible here: [3]. I see that time has moved to the top of the table. Some wording has been tweaked. — Quondum 16:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I'll repeat here some concerns I raised when this material was at
International System of Units and still have now that we've moved the material here, restoring and expanding this article. The earlier discussion among myself,
Dondervogel 2 and
Quondum is at
Talk:International System of Units/Archives/05/2015#ISQ again.
I fear
Dondervogel 2's assessment of the primary sources has inherent errors in the sections
International System of Quantities#Quantities of the ISQ and
International System of Quantities#Units of the ISQ.
In parts 3 to 14 of this International Standard, the quantities and relations among them, which are a subset of the ISQ, are given on the left-hand pages, and the units of the SI (and some other units) are given on the right-hand pages. Some additional quantities and units are also given on the left-hand and right-hand pages, respectively.
ISQ is a shorthand notation for the “system of quantities on which the SI is based”, which was the phrase used for this system in ISO 31.
In the ISO and IEC 80000 series the quantities and equations used with the SI are known as the International System of Quantities
I think this means we have to edit the article, either to make it clear that some of the quantities and all of the units mentioned are not part of ISQ, or to simply remove them as out of scope. I'm tending to the latter, especially given that we have an article on ISO 80000 already. What do others think? NebY ( talk) 14:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The author(s) of these words surely intended the scope of the ISQ to cover all of ISO/IEC 80000, and possibly beyond. Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 22:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)The system of quantities, including the relations among them the quantities used as the basis of the units of the SI, is named the International System of Quantities, denoted “ISQ”, in all languages. This name was not used in ISO 31, from which the present harmonized series has evolved. However, ISQ does appear in ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007 and in the SI Brochure [8], Edition 8:2006. In both cases, this was to ensure consistency with the new Quantities and units series that was under preparation at the time they were published; it had already been announced that the new term would be used. It should be realized, however, that ISQ is simply a convenient notation to assign to the essentially infinite and continually evolving and expanding system of quantities and equations on which all of modern science and technology rests. ISQ is a shorthand notation for the “system of quantities on which the SI is based”, which was the phrase used for this system in ISO 31.
Under the Base Quantities section, it says, "The conventional symbolic representation of the dimension of a base quantity is a single upper-case letter in roman (upright) sans-serif type."
Does it actually have to be sans-serif? Considering the heavy usage of serif fonts in official documentation of most organisations (the default "professional" font style in businesses, nonprofits, etc. is most often Times New Roman), I find it somewhat difficult to believe that serif font styles would not be allowed under at the *very* least most circumstances.
– SarahTehCat ( talk) 21:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Dondervogel 2 ( talk) 22:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)The conventional symbolic representation of the dimension of a base quantity is a single upper case letter in roman (upright) type. The conventional symbolic representation of the dimension of a derived quantity is the product of powers of the dimensions of the base quantities according to the definition of the derived quantity.
Here's a screenshot. It's very clearly there. Base Quantities > 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. [2] – SarahTehCat ( talk) 17:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Good idea, Dondervogel 2 – SarahTehCat ( talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Logarithmic quantities and levels are defined in ISO 80000-3:2007 § 0.5 in reasonably pleasing detail. Indispensable to the definition of a level as defined in the ISQ is the definition of a 'field quantity' and a 'power quantity' (this is IMO unfortunate historical baggage, but c'est la vie). The article is currently inaccurate, since it does not capture this distinction, which conditionally selects the applicable formula. To quote, "a field quantity is defined as a quantity whose square is proportional to power when it acts on a linear system", and further, "Meaningful measures of power quantities generally require time averaging to form a mean-square value that is proportional to power. Corresponding field quantities may then be obtained as the root-mean-square value."
This hobbled definition is stopping me from simply rewriting this. (What could have become a beautiful system has hung onto some utter abominations.) But maybe I'll get to rewording the section, since ISO 80000:3 does a sterling job of retrospective description in this case, within the historical constraints. — Quondum 17:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I wish to challenge the statement
I think we have the conceptualization of the ISQ entirely back-to-front. ISO 80000 does not define the ISQ, but rather an interpretation of parts of it. The SI is based on the ISQ, which is in some sense informal, but ISO has no authority over the SI. We need to completely separate the concepts of ISQ and ISO 80000. — Quondum 18:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This request essentially follows on from the discussion above. The claim of a lack of formal basis may be considered to be overly strong, but the gist is that citations show that the ISQ is not the same thing as and is only partly formalized in ISO 80000: the ISQ is inherently incompletely defined, it is not circumscribed, is continually evolving, and is essentially defined as what is generally accepted as opposed to what is fully defined by a formal definition. ISO 80000 can be seen as a formalization of parts of the ISQ, but I do not think one can call it a "formal basis for the ISQ". Some quotations:
(It may be noted that ISO 80000-1:2009 is self-contradictory in this respect: the two quoted extracts above are mutually inconsistent (if one takes §3.6 to be circumscribing rather than descriptive of a minimal inclusion).) One could say that the system of base and derived quantities in the ISQ is formalized by ISO 80000. We could revise the statement "The ISQ does not have a formal basis" to read something more directly derivable from the sources, such as "The ISQ is not a formal or fully defined system." — Quondum 13:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
This article repeatedly uses the word being defined within the definition. For example in Paragraph 1 Line 1, "The Interntional System of Quantities (ISQ) is a system of quantities..." Again under the heading Base Quantity: "A base quantity is a physical quantity..." This is like saying an apple is defined as an apple. Not informative. Not helpful to young readers. Poor grammar, and run-on sentences at several locations lead to significant confusion for an experienced reader to understand the main point in the article, which is believed to be a presentation of the organizational hierarchy described among different organizations, I think! The net result is a confusing article with no premise and no conclusion, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprainville ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
( ←) Dondervogel, I tend to make some inferences from the changes that I have seen. A significant observation is that SI and ISO have omitted almost all mention of logarithmic quantities, as though they belatedly realized that including half-baked stuff attempting to turn the historical mishmash into a standard is worse than no standard. To produce a consistent set of definitions requires actually ditching the inconsistencies, which is not easy. The SI saw some debate around historical baggage around angle, which in the end had no effect: the status quo remained. In contrast, I haven't noticed any significant debate about the tougher area of level and its units, and suddenly materializing something untested by robust debate is a recipe for disaster. My bet is that we will not get anything but a very trimmed version of what we had before, or that it will simply not materialize for many years to come. What is unclear about the relationship between the shannon (aka bit) and the nat? — Quondum 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I see that a draft of VIM4 is accessible here: [3]. I see that time has moved to the top of the table. Some wording has been tweaked. — Quondum 16:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)