- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:23:25 +0100
- To: Jeff Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Ulrike Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Jeff Pan wrote:
>
> How is it possible use the predicate cmPerM to detect the inconsistency in
> the above example, i.e., 15cm is not 1.5m?
>
Isn't this one of those things that we currently have no solution to.
The document it and move on approach might be appropriate.
OTOH assuming we had an oracle that could tell us
SameIndividual(
individual(type(LengthQuantity) value(150) unit(cm)),
individual(type(LengthQuantity) value(1.5) unit(m)))
then we seem to have a modelling problem ... because we now have two
different values for the same thing ...
in other words is a diameterValue a pair (value,unit) or is it an
abstraction of a length. If the latter then we can't represent it as
simply a pair becase of the many different equivalent pairs.
This would suggest a lengthInM and lengthInCM approach to modelling
units so that
SameIndividual(
individual(type(LengthQuantity) lengthInCM(150) ),
individual(type(LengthQuantity) lengthInM(1.5) ))
works without contradiction.
I suspect that long-term it is best to work with the abstraction rather
than the concrete pair.
Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 05:24:12 UTC