- From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:02:08 +0200
- 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 UTC