This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Job for you - research the term. I suggest that you start with this document - a joint publication from BIPM, OIML, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC and IUPAP. YOu will notice that they do not define the term, but note 3, Page 46 gives a discourse as to what they mean by the term. You might also like to look at this document, published by the BIPM, but written by the CCU (see here for addresses etc and here for membership. Martinvl (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you point out, the term isn't actually defined in the reference you give to support its definition, the "International vocabulary of metrology – Basic and general concepts and associated terms" document, it isn't even mentioned in its index. This would suggest to me that it isn't actually a metrological term at all, just another English word ambiguously used in that document in an attempt to define some of the actual metrological terms. If it is a metrological term, don't you think that it would at least appear in the index of the BIPM's list of metrological vocabularly? I looked at the other document too, and the term is used without definition there too, as if the normal English meaning applies. AnnieLess (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My research so far (using the documents you provided) leads me to believe that it is term used only in BIPM publications, or by those talking about the contents of BIPM documents, so I have made that point in the article. AnnieLess (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the obvious - my old school dictionary "The Concise Oxford Dictionary 1964". The entry for "Realize/Realise identiofies it as a transitive verb gives three meanings, the first of which is "Convert (hope, plan etc) into fact". The dictionary entry ends with "Hence ~able (adjective), ~ation (noun)". The word "Realisation" therefore comes straight from the dictionary. In the sense of meterlogy this ensuring that the definition of a unit of measure can actually be performed. Martinvl (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You confirm then what I said - that it is used in its normal English sense. There is no reason not to replace the word with a clearer explanation of what the BIPM are trying to convey then, in other articles, as this word has no meaning exclusive to them. There's also no apparent need for a whole article dedicated to the meaning of a dictionary word. This article could be reused for "realisation of SI unit definitions", or similar. AnnieLess (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
