Jump to content

Talk:ISO/IEC 80000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Completeness

[edit]

Do we have evidence to support the statement in the lede that all 14 parts are complete? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Í think I've found the answer to my own question at the ISO catalogue. All 14 parts are listed there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brackets?

[edit]

You mustn't write the symbol sign between brackets. E.g. "entropy [H]" doesn't mean the symbol of the entropy but means the symbol of its unit. ZJ (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Units and prefixes outside the SI

[edit]

The ISQ includes many quantities and their units (and unit prefixes). Many of these are part of the SI, but others are not. I propose we compose a list of such units that were defined before the start of the ongoing revision of ISO/IEC 80000. Then we can look at the effect of the revision on that list. The list could either be included here or in ISO/IEC 80000. There are could be more, but here's a small sample to set the balling rolling what I found in parts 3, 8 and 13. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the concern expressed by NebY that the ISQ does not include units. If he (or she) is correct, this list would not belong here. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I still agree with that position. ISO 80000-1:2009 uses F = ma as an example to illustrate the differences between systems of quantities in §0.1. The difference they highlight relate to equations, not to the units that are used, despite these being very different. The conclusion to be drawn is that units do not form part of a system of quantities. (See also §3.3 "system of quantities: set of quantities together with a set of non-contradictory equations relating those quantities", which makes no mention of units.) I feel that the "UNITS" part of the table is informative in the context of a system of quantities.
In short, a lot of what ISO 80000 specifies is outside the ISQ, and not everything in the ISQ ("the essentially infinite and continually evolving and expanding system of quantities and equations") can be specified by it. —Quondum 17:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I suggest moving this entire thread to ISO/IEC 80000. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. The list below belongs with a description of ISO/IEC 80000 (in my mind at least).
This thread was moved here from Talk:International System of Quantities. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Units defined in Part 1

[edit]

Prefixes

[edit]

Units defined in Part 3

[edit]

Time

[edit]

Angle

[edit]

Volume

[edit]

Speed

[edit]

Logarithmic units

[edit]

Units defined in Part 8

[edit]

Logarithmic units

[edit]

Units defined in Part 13

[edit]

Logarithmic units

[edit]

Data rate

[edit]

Occupancy

[edit]

Review of ISO/IEC post-revision

[edit]

"volume flow rate" versus "volume velocity"

[edit]

I've managed to dig out ISO 80000-8:2007, which will possibly shed some insight. This lists "sound volume velocity" and "sound volume flow rate" as two names for the same quantity under 8-13, which it defines as "surface integral of the normal component of the sound particle velocity (item 8-11) over the cross-section (through which the sound propagates)". [As a side note, as defined it makes little sense: as an instantaneous or even as a time-averaged quantity the expected value is zero, and totally useless in acoustics.] —Quondum 13:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and you are correct in that the terms are synonymous. Mea culpa. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Can someone check is the link with text "ISO 80000-3". The link is defaulting to current page as the old page (circa 2016) no longer exists. I looked at may 9 2016 version (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=ISO/IEC_80000&oldid=719362702) does not have this link and May 13 2016 version (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=ISO/IEC_80000&oldid=720059573) does have link. Should link go to the current article or an external wiki URL reference (any suggestions)?

Ryper (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not point internal pages like that to external pages. This page is the most appropriate target for ISO 80000-3. If there is a link in this page and that page redirects here, then the link here should be removed. Izno (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the circular link. —Quondum 20:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a for annus

[edit]

there's a failed verification in the lead of Year; could anyone with access to ISO 80000-3, Annex C, confirm or refute it, please? thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quantity unit 'year' (symbol 'a') is defined by ISO 80000-3:2006 as either 365 days or 366 days. This 2006 standard was withdrawn in 2019 and replaced by ISO 80000-3:2019, which does not define the quantity unit 'year'. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated further. ISO 8601:2019 defines 'calendar year' as 'time scale unit (3.1.1.7) defined by the calendar (3.1.1.18) system'. While not immediately apparent from the definition itself, it seems reasonable to infer (from the everyday meaning of the word 'calendar') that this definition implies a calendar year is either 365 or 366 days. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some misunderstanding here: the citation request is for the use of the abbreviation a. Dondervogel 2, are you sayinng that the verbatim phrase is The quantity 'year' (symbol 'a') is used ISO 80000-3:2006 (meaning that we can cite it). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little confusion here. Time is a quantity; the year is a unit of measurement of time. ISO 8601-1:2019 doesn't provide a symbol for the unit.
Digressing a bit to explain that: ISO 8601-1 3.1.2.20 year provides a definition of a year as 365 or 366 days, depending on the particular day and calendar year in which the time interval begins, for the purposes of ISO 8601. (As well as defining year, month and day, ISO-8601-1:2019 defines calendar year, calendar month and calendar day, such that a calendar date is a "particular calendar day represented by its calendar year, its calendar month and its calendar day of month".) I see no symbol in ISO 8601-1 for the year as a unit of measurement; after those intial definitions of its terms, it proceeds with its subject, the representation of date and time for information exchange. It isn't interested in the symbols of units. Indeed, it isn't a standard which provides definitions of units of measurement for general use or for use in other standards. These initial clauses are a meticulous detailing of the terms it will use in the body of the sytandard, but have no other force. NebY (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman: No, that phrase does not appear verbatim. The unit 'year' is defined in a table. The column "Name of unit with symbol" reads "year: a", meaning that 'a' is the symbol for the unit 'year'. I think it is legitimate to use 'a' as a symbol for year (citing ISO 80000-3:2006), but it would be incorrect to describe it as a standard symbol, because the 2006 standard is now obsolete. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest rephrasing. The statement's very specific for a lead summary. The WP:LEADCITE principle is that the lead should summarise the body of the article and does not require references if the content is referenced in the body. The body does have references for "a" though the first one in turn relies on a superseded standard (it says in 8.1 "Although there is no universally accepted symbol for the year, Ref. [4: ISO 80000-3] suggests the symbol a.") it is itself current. It should be unarguable to have something like "In English, the abbreviations y and yr are commonly used and a is also used" in the lead, with no reference required as that is all in the body. NebY (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done NebY (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of ISO 31-0 into ISO/IEC 80000

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, as readers are best served by having the former ISO discussed separately from the current one in this case. Klbrain (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISO 31 is superseded by ISO 80000. fgnievinski (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the grounds that the proposal does not consider the effect the more obvious target, ISO 31, and all its subpages (ISO 31-0,ISO 31-1 ... ISO 31-13. Klbrain (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that it contains useful detail, that while superseded, is still useful and would not be properly captured in a history section at the target. A merge would also necessarily at least require the replacement detail to be extracted from ISO 80000, which is itself a challenge. —Quondum 16:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's nothing wrong with documenting superseded standards, references to which may be scattered through all sorts of literature. It would be helpful to readers to make it clearer sooner that it's been supersed, eg
ISO 31-0 (superseded by ISO 80000-1) is the introductory part of international standard ISO 31 on quantities and units.
NebY (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove additional citations for verification

[edit]

This article has had the more citations needed template for almost a decade, and since then this page has increased, this article now has 38 sources cited. I think we can retire it now Rorr404 talk contributions 20:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not publicly available anymore

[edit]

New versions of IEC 80000 which superseded ones cited in the article aren't publicly available. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every instance I've checked of "The text of this document is publicly available" or "The text of the informative sections of this document is publicly available" has been correct and the citation's included a link to that text. Have you found any that are wrong?
Alternatively, if you're concerned that we're referencing material that isn't available for free, that's perfectly normal and proper on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. NebY (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the PDF for ISO 80000-1 is actually available in full for free on the official iso.org site: https://www.iso.org/home.isoDocumentsDownload.do?t=0bc30Dw3Fis0Kmeb_a6O_bzO2QP14DxJAxwtmaRLmv-WwspRuGQ-iHB6VgCGRJnU
Whether this is a mistake or not is unsure, but it's not a third party hosting an illicit copy, it's their own site. Sharparam (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:ISO/IEC_80000&oldid=1245361486"