W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2003

Re: (Round 2) Proposed Extensions to OWL

From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:02:08 +0200
Message-ID: <3F046190.1000902@gmx.de>
To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, tpassin@comcast.net, jon@spin.ie


Hi Roger,

your example with the farm (below) would be written like this:

<Farm>
     <area>
         <Area>
             <measurement>
                 <AreaMeasure>
                     <transform rdf:parseType="resource">
                         <TransformProduct math:left="LengthInMiles"
                                           math:right="LengthInInches"/>
                     </transform>
                     <number>625</number>
                 </AreaMeasure>
             </measurement>
         </Area>
     </area>
</Farm>

I.e., you would be able to create a new unit from the product of two 
other units. A more interesting example would be Thomas' acre-feet of 
water, i.e.,

<TransformProduct rdf:parseType="resource" math:left="AreaInAcres" 
math:right="LengthInFeet"/>

I think it then makes sense to write stuff like the above with names 
like PhysicalQuantity and Measurement instead of Area and AreaMeasurement--

<Farm>
     <area>
         <PhysicalQuantity>
             <measurement>
                 <Measurement>
                     <transform rdf:parseType="resource">
                         <TransformProduct math:left="LengthInMiles"
                                           math:right="LengthInInches"/>
                     </transform>
                     <number>625</number>
             </measurement>
         </PhysicalQuantity>
     </area>
</Farm>

or, in practice,

<Farm>
     <area rdf:parseType="resource">
         <measurement rdf:parseType="resource">
             <transform rdf:parseType="resource">
                 <TransformProduct math:left="LengthInMiles"
                                   math:right="LengthInInches"/>
             </transform>
             <number>625</number>
         </measurement>
     </area>
</Farm>

- Benja

Roger L. Costello wrote:
> Tom, are you saying that you prefer this:
> 
> <River rdf:ID="Yangtze">
>     <length>
>         <Length>
>             <measurement>
>                 <LengthMeasure>
>                     <transform rdf:resource="LengthInMiles"/>
>                     <number>3914</number>
>                 </LengthMeasure>
>             </measurement>
>         </Length>
>     </length>
> </River>
> 
> to this:
> 
> <River rdf:ID="Yangtze">
>     <length>
>         <Length>
>             <measurement>
>                 <LengthInMiles>
>                     <number>3914</number>
>                 </LengthInMiles>
>             </measurement>
>         </Length>
>     </length>
> </River>
> 
> I am not clear on why the transform version is more flexible?  You
> mentioned an example of expressing an area in two different units (miles
> by inches).
> 
> Let's take that example.  Here it is using <transform>:
> 
> <Farm>
>     <length>
>         <Length>
>             <measurement>
>                 <LengthMeasure>
>                     <transform rdf:resource="LengthInMiles"/>
>                     <number>0.25</number>
>                 </LengthMeasure>
>             </measurement>
>         </Length>
>     </length>
>     <width>
>         <Length>
>             <measurement>
>                 <LengthMeasure>
>                     <transform rdf:resource="LengthInInches"/>
>                     <number>2500</number>
>                 </LengthMeasure>
>             </measurement>
>         </Length>
>     </width>
> </Farm>
> 
> Here it is using the other approach:
> 
> <Farm>
>     <length>
>         <Length>
>             <measurement>
>                 <LengthInMiles>
>                     <number>0.25</number>
>                 </LengthMeasure>
>             </measurement>
>         </Length>
>     </length>
>     <width>
>         <Length>
>             <measurement>
>                 <LengthInInches>
>                     <number>2500</number>
>                 </LengthMeasure>
>             </measurement>
>         </Length>
>     </width>
> </Farm>
> 
> I don't understand how the <transform> version is more flexible.  Would
> you elaborate please?  /Roger
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:03:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:00 GMT