From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:49:23 -0400

To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Message-id: <002801c33cb2$ea9b08e0$6401a8c0@tbp1>

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 09:49:23 -0400

To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Message-id: <002801c33cb2$ea9b08e0$6401a8c0@tbp1>

[Roger L. Costello] > > 2. There is a relationship between > > concat(rdf:value, units) in resource #1, and > concat(rdf:value, units) in resource #2. > > "There is a relationship between the concatenation of the > value of the rdf:value property with the value of the units > property in resource #1, and a similar concatenation of > values in resource #2." > > The relationship is: > > 1.0 inch = 2.54 centimeter > > Do you agree that this is the relationship between the two > anonymous resources? No, I do not. Trying to stick close to the way you have set this out, there is not a direct relationship between the __concatenations__ of unit and value. You could say there is a relationship between the __tuple_s_ (1.0, inch) and (2.54, cm), but that is still superficial because it depends on the number of significant figures and the round-off strategy. I would rather have it be more fundamental. Here is what we know, it seems to me - 1) Both resources are length measures. 2) The value of a length measure can be expressed numerically in different units. (This is a scalar quantity. A more complex quantity, like a vector or tensor, would have to be expressed as some structured value). We know a few other things, but they can be formulated in various ways. Here is one way. 3) The numerical value of a length measure may be obtained by applying an operator (or a transformation) to it. That is, conceptually length-in-inches = L1 * M, where L1 is the operator for getting the length in inches, and M is the measure. 4) A measure may have any number of such operators or transforms, one for each different unit of measure. Here is a set of triples (minus namespaces) for your two resources that captures, I think, the essence of these points - {resource {type:length-measure} {value: transform: { type:length-in-inches} number: 1 } } } {resource {type:length-measure} {value: transform: { type:length-in-cm} number: 2.54 } } } I think that these are admirably simple, and I doubt that you can simplify them any more without losing their essence. The resource type can obviously be stated in OWL as part of an ontology, and so can the transform type. If we had a standard way to make math statements with OWL, we could make an OWL statement that the two transforms (inch and cm) had some kind of "equivalentValueTo" relationship. This approach takes the matter of the relationship between length in cm and length in inches away from the individual resources and puts in onto the expression of the relationship between the transform types. I think this is very appropriate. The upshot is that you need to come up with some convention for expressing the relationship between the transforms - or of testing for equivalence - and then everything else can be handled in OWL. Cheers, Tom PReceived on Friday, 27 June 2003 09:48:01 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:46 UTC
*