W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > May 2004

Re: [OEP] a Quantity pattern? [was: Re: [UNITS] FAQ : Constraints on data values range]

From: Jeff Z. Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 08:15:05 +0100
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org;, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>;, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>;, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>;, Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>;, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>;, Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <20040510081505.B30833@yvain.cs.man.ac.uk>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [OEP] a Quantity pattern? [was: Re: [UNITS] FAQ : Constraints
on data values range]


> Jeff Pan wrote:
> >
> > How is it possible use the predicate cmPerM to detect the inconsistency
in
> > the above example, i.e., 15cm is not 1.5m?
> >
>
> Isn't this one of those things that we currently have no solution to.
> The document it and move on approach might be appropriate.

Even though OWL does not provide a solution to it, it does not mean that we
currently have no solution to it, nor does it mean that when we consider the
unit pattern we should not consider possible future extension of OWL
datatyping.

Jeff


> OTOH assuming we had an oracle that could tell us
>
>   SameIndividual(
>     individual(type(LengthQuantity) value(150) unit(cm)),
>     individual(type(LengthQuantity) value(1.5) unit(m)))
>
> then we seem to have a modelling problem ... because we now have two
> different values for the same thing ...
>
> in other words is a diameterValue a pair (value,unit) or is it an
> abstraction of a length. If the latter then we can't represent it as
> simply a pair becase of the many different equivalent pairs.
> This would suggest a lengthInM and lengthInCM approach to modelling
> units so that
>
> SameIndividual(
>     individual(type(LengthQuantity) lengthInCM(150) ),
>     individual(type(LengthQuantity) lengthInM(1.5) ))
>
> works without contradiction.
>
> I suspect that long-term it is best to work with the abstraction rather
> than the concrete pair.
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 03:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC