Re: Improvement of www.schema.org/menu

Hi Mark,

I and my QUDT colleagues welcome collaboration on this work. There are some important naming conventions we are following for all units of measure and for dimensional analysis. Mappings to UN/ECE and UCUM have been done to different levels of completeness.  QUDT Schema R2.0 has the properties that are needed (see below).  These mappings were in some cases performed by getting data into RDF and then running SPIN rules for transformations.

QUDT work has started this year with more help from other parties. Also  QUDT.org <http://qudt.org/> is going through the membership process with W3C.  One motivation for this is the high interest in the W3C SHAPES SHACL standard. SHACL is of interest for constraint checking of RDF graphs in IOT projects and other industrial and finance application areas.
I will check the status of the mappings with other QUDT editors and give an you an update in due course.

Regards,


Ralph Hodgson, @ralphtq <http://twitter.com/ralphtq>
CTO, TopQuadrant, Inc., www.topquadrant.com <http://www.topquadrant.com/> @TopQuadrant <http://twitter.com/topquadrant>
cell: +1 781-789-1664 / fax: 703 299-8330 / main: 919 300-7945
TQ Blog: The Semantic Ecosystems Journal <http://topquadrantblog.blogspot.com/>,  and <https://www.linkedin.com/company/topquadrant> and
 <https://twitter.com/TopQuadrant>
 <https://twitter.com/TopQuadrant>
> On Jan 16, 2017, at 7:35 PM, Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com <mailto:wes.turner@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Monday, January 16, 2017, Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net <mailto:mark.harrison@cantab.net>> wrote:
> Sorry to be pedantic ;-) , but in fact, the SI base unit for mass is the kilogram.  
> See 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Base_units <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Base_units> and http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf <http://physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf> (section 2.1.1.2) and
> http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/kilogram.html <http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/kilogram.html>
> 
> The gram is the base unit for mass in the old CGS system - but not in the modern SI system.
> 
> Good catch. I guess that makes standarization on unit specifiers all the more important.
>  
> 
> QUDT will be more useful and more complete when version 2.0 is finally released - and has very useful machine-readable triples for expressing the dimension of each unit (is it a mass, a length, etc.) and conversion factors and offsets between units that belong to the same physical dimension (e.g. to convert between various units of mass or between various units of length).  
> 
> In GS1 and the GS1 web vocabulary, for the value of http://gs1.org/voc/unitCode <http://gs1.org/voc/unitCode> we use a string value indicating a Measurement Unit from UN/ECE Recommendation 20 code tables, e.g. GRM for gram, KGM for Kilogram, MGM for milligram and MC for microgram.  A 2005 edition of the code tables is available at http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/recommendations/rec20/rec20_rev3_Annex3e.pdf <http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/cefact/recommendations/rec20/rec20_rev3_Annex3e.pdf>
> 
> .unit=(unitStr/URI, unit system)
>  
> 
> Personally, I'd much prefer the QUDT approach but industry does currently use the UN/ECE Rec 20 code tables for expressing units of measure, even if some of these UN ECE code strings are completely opaque and non-intuitive, e.g. 28 = kilogram per square metre.
> 
> 
> - Are there mappings from the UN/ECE codes to labels and URIs?
> - Are there mappings from the UN/ECE system to QUDT?
> 
> 
> As far as I am aware, the UN/ECE codes are only published in spreadsheets or PDF documents.
> I've never seen any RDF datasets from UN/ECE that map from UN/ECE codes to anything useful such as labels, conversion factors and offsets or QUDT URIs.
> 
> Good Relations do have this useful table on their site:
> http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/UN/CEFACT_Common_Codes <http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/UN/CEFACT_Common_Codes>
> but it appears to be just an HTML table without any inline markup and appears to be for the most frequently used units - only a subset of the entire UN/ECE Rec 20 common code table.
> 
> The v1.1 QUDT units resource at http://qudt.org/vocab/unit# <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit#> appears to be offline and I can't find a complete corresponding v2.0 QUDT resource for the units - it looks like they have published their schema so far [ see http://www.qudt.org/release2/qudt-catalog.html <http://www.qudt.org/release2/qudt-catalog.html> and http://qudt.org/doc/2016/DOC_SCHEMA-QUDT-v2.0.html <http://qudt.org/doc/2016/DOC_SCHEMA-QUDT-v2.0.html> ], and some datasets for some units - but certainly not for all units - nor did they release the dataset for SI units first.  Various units datasets are still in progress or in quality control, according to http://www.qudt.org/release2/qudt-catalog.html <http://www.qudt.org/release2/qudt-catalog.html> .
> 
> One example of a QUDT 2.0 units resource is http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/KG-PER-MOL <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/KG-PER-MOL>
> Looking at that, I don't see a triple that links that resource to even the string UN/ECE Rec 20 code string, which is D74 in the case of kilogram per mole.
> 
> I think QUDT 2.0 will be a very useful resource for everyone when it is complete and online.
> Not sure whether they're under-resourced and could appreciate some help to complete and test the units dataset.
> 
> What could be a very useful extension of QUDT 2.0 is if they can provide a mapping to/from the UN/ECE Rec 20 common code string in both directions so that we could have triples such as
> 
> http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/KG-PER-MOL <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/KG-PER-MOL>   owl:sameAs   http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/D74 <http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/D74> .
> 
> appearing within the triples for each resource within the http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/ <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/> namespace
> 
> and also a dataset at a new namespace, for example:  http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/ <http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/>
> 
> providing triples such as
> 
> http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/B15 <http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/B15>  owl:sameAs  http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/J-PER-MOL <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/J-PER-MOL> .
> http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/D74 <http://qudt.org/vocab/unece/D74>  owl:sameAs  http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/KG-PER-MOL <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/KG-PER-MOL> .
> 
> 
> When QUDT 2.0 is complete and online, it could then be appropriate for schema.org <http://schema.org/>, GoodRelations, the GS1 web vocabulary to introduce a new dedicated property schema:qudtUnit  etc. that expects a URI from within the http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/ <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit/J-PER-MOL> namespace.
>  
> I've copied Ralph Hodgson on this e-mail thread, since he is one of the original developers or QUDT and is still on their board of directors.  He and I exchanged a couple of emails along these lines around 18 months ago.  Now that there are some examples of what QUDT 2.0 units resources look like, some of us might be able to help QUDT fill in some of the gaps.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com <>> wrote:
> http://schema.org/NutritionInformation <http://schema.org/NutritionInformation>
> 
> http://schema.org/servingSize <http://schema.org/servingSize> r: Text 
> "The serving size, in terms of the number of volume or mass"
> 
> Other NutritionInformation attributes have a r:ange of Mass.
> 
> - Does this suggest a need for a Volume class?
> - Could/should the servingSize range be Quantity?
> 
> - Should Quantity have a 'unit' property with r: URL?
>   http://schema.org/Quantity <http://schema.org/Quantity>
> 
>   - QUDT defines URLs for many (powers of) physical units
>     - Unfortunately, there are a number of vocabularies for physical units
>   - The SI unit for Mass is always g(ram)
> 
> ...
> 
> https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/units#rdf-and-units <https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/units#rdf-and-units>
> 
> https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/linkedreproducibility#csv-csvw-and-metadata-rows <https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/linkedreproducibility#csv-csvw-and-metadata-rows> ... "Table with 7 metadata header rows"
> 
> On Monday, January 16, 2017, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com <>> wrote:
> On 15 January 2017 at 07:42, Xavier Gonsalves <axv4444@gmail.com <>> wrote:
> > Many have talked and requested about this but w3 seems to avoid it.
> 
> 
> 
> > Schema should add more properties under restaurant menus like dish price,
> > cuisine, spiciness, dish name, ingredients, veg, nonveg, vegan category,
> > description .etc.. so that search engines can implement the following in the
> > future:
> >
> > https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2328869/google-tests-restaurant-menus-in-card-results/ <https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2328869/google-tests-restaurant-menus-in-card-results/>
> >
> > It can be ordered such that these properties can be put on the webpage of
> > the URL of the menu.
> >
> > Please look into it ASAP.
> 
> Please comment on the draft at http://webschemas.org/MenuItem <http://webschemas.org/MenuItem> in
> Github, https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1288 <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1288>
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
>