- From: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 05:12:24 -0600
- To: "public-dwbp-comments@w3.org" <public-dwbp-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACfEFw-qBNkF8ewFit0Rc=LjpDSN3hxhu_91WQcgqZuMJHBrRA@mail.gmail.com>
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