W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dwbp-comments@w3.org > January 2017

REQ: Data Units

From: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 05:12:24 -0600
Message-ID: <CACfEFw-qBNkF8ewFit0Rc=LjpDSN3hxhu_91WQcgqZuMJHBrRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
Guidance regarding the need for and advantages of including units from a
standard system of units vocabulary is ever-needed.


A few relevant threads (from searching for "qudt"):


"URIs / Ontology for Physical Units and Quantities"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Jan/0157.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2015May/thread.html#msg3

"Re: Are there any plans to develop an OWL version of QUDT?"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014May/0065.html

"Re: Improvement of www.schema.org/menu"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2017Jan/0007.html


Vocabularies:

UNECE UN/CEFACT
- Not (yet?) RDF URIs

QUDT 1.1

QUDT 2.0 (in progress, needs review)
- Mappings to UN/CEFACT

CSVW

Data Cubes



Todo:

Vocab URIs
Is this in scope for DWBP? LD-BP?
What should the headings be?
Where would the headings be?
If the rec is "use QUDT 2.0, but it's still in need of review", what else
can be said?

...

https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/linkedreproducibility#csv-csvw-and-metadata-rows
:

> A data table with 7 metadata header rows (column label, property URI
path, datatype, unit, accuracy, precision, significant figures)
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 11:12:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 January 2017 11:12:57 UTC