Re: WG discussion: proposal to remove BP2 - Provide context required to interpret data values

Thanks!

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 12:05 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:

> uom is a general case, crs is a spatial specific case. precision and
> accuracy are also general cases where we really need a spatial case....
>
>
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 at 22:49 Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, summarising so far.
>
> 1/ Remove BP2
> 2/ Recognise this as an open challenge; point to efforts where this may
> get resolved.
>
> I think that the editor's plan is to identify remaining open challenges
> (such as these) in [something like] the conclusions section of the BP
> document. We have some examples that _use_ unit of measurement statements
> (e.g. in DQV and elsewhere), but nothing substantial.
>
> @roba: can you confirm that its the specific to UoM or is it a wider
> concern? I suspect the latter; UoM is just an easy one to illustrate.
>
> Thanks, Jeremy
>
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 at 23:06 Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au> wrote:
>
> I would concur there is a lack of a bp in the wild... but think its
> critical for interoperability. . So +1 for a section on key open
> challenges. Hopefully ssn willl present a solution and qb4st can offer
> guidance on how to do it at the set level... but these are emergent not bp.
>
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, 2:28 AM Jon Blower <j.d.blower@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> In this effort, I guess that Dave will be looking at the previous attempts
> to create UoM vocabularies and schemes (QUDT, UDUNITS, UCUM, JSR-275…) From
> what you say, he feels that QUDT is too heavyweight, but the list of
> discussion points seems to point to exactly the use cases that these
> previous efforts address. UoM is one of those things that looks simple on
> the surface, but is rather fiendish underneath…
>
> Cheers,Jon
>
>
>
> On 27/02/2017 14:33, "Phil Archer" <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>
>     Caught in the trap...
>
>
>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>     Subject: Re: WG discussion: proposal to remove BP2 - Provide context
>     required to interpret data values
>     Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:17:35 +0000
>     From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
>     To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
>     CC: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>, SDW WG Public List
>     <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
>
>
>
>     > On 27 Feb 2017, at 12:21, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>     >
>     > I know that Dave Raggett (in cc) has been looking at the issue of
> UoM for WoT. The QUDT vocab is too heavy weight for his needs. He may have
> something else to add to this.
>
>     Semantic interoperability for the Web of things makes it necessary to
>     address units of measure.  The Web of things Interest Group has created
>     a task force to work on linked data and semantic processing. An
>     investigation into units of measure is one of the topics the task force
>     is expected to work on, and I expect this to involve reaching out and
>     coordinating with a broad range of groups.
>
>     Some things to discuss include:
>
>       -  a means to identify both the units of measure and the scale factor
>     using a single RDF node
>       -  a means to derive the units of measure and scale factor as
> separate
>     RDF nodes
>       -  a means to relate the units of measure to the physical quantity it
>     refers to (e.g. electrical current)
>       -  agreements on short and long names for use in JSON based thing
>     descriptions (mA vs milliamperes)
>       -  agreements on how units of measure can be grouped into meaningful
>     modules
>
>     The Web of Things Interest Group is keen to welcome new members to help
>     with this work. If you’re interested, please get in touch with me.
>
>     Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>     W3C lead for the Web of things
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>