- From: Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 17:38:28 -0500
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Message-ID: <CACfEFw9zU+MtbEUdrNEpwBKYk6+89mSz23Cnew07njUwCHwj+w@mail.gmail.com>
So, the UN/CEFACT to publish RDF would require generating some triples from an excel document, and publishing it with a permalink URI? * It seems odd to be relying upon non-URI keys with Linked Data. * It would be very easy to publish an RDF version of this crucial dataset On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 5:31 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org < martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > The problem is not the one time generation. The problems are as follows: > > 1. Copyright - Are you allowed to republish the code set as RDF? > 2. Sustainability - Are you commited to keep the URIs dereferencable, or > will some domain grabber take the domain name once the creator has > completed his/her PhD and lost interest. > 3. Updates - Will you keep the RDF version in sync whenever the standard > changes? > > Unless there is a clear "yes" to all three questions, it is better to use > the official codes than derived URIs. > > Martin > > > > > On 06 May 2015, at 23:56, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > How much time do you think it would take to generate RDF (and namespaced > URIs) from the linked spreadsheet? > > > > Mappings to/from UN/CEFACT codes (as owl:sameAs mappings to strings) > could certainly be useful. > > > > On May 6, 2015 4:31 PM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" < > martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > > I think a validator should simply use the list of valid codes from the > most recent UN/CEFACT document (available as MS Excel from > http://www.unece.org/cefact/codesfortrade/codes_index.html). > > > > There might be unit of measurement ontologies out there that hold the > UN/CEFACT Common Code string for a subset of all units as a literal value. > But for validation, one should use the authoritative list from the Excel > files (since they are updated from time to time). > > > > URIs are not better than strings for validation, because URIs are > strings. > > > > Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > > > Martin Hepp > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > martin hepp > > e-business & web science research group > > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > > > e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de > > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > > skype: mfhepp > > twitter: mfhepp > > > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > > ================================================================= > > * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > > > > > > > > > > On 06 May 2015, at 20:34, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > I notice that with QUDT there are SI conversion factors and complete > URIs for each unit. > > > > > > Is there a schema for validation of "schema:QuantativeValues supports > all UN/CEFACT Common Codes"? > > > > > > (A similar quandry as with MedicalCode; where URI namespaces (like > icd10:) would be more helpful for terminological validation and > disambiguation than plain string keys) > > > > > > On May 6, 2015 4:26 AM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" < > martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Wes, > > > > sorry for a very late reply: > > > > > > > > Actually you could easily use schema:QuantitativeValue for both time > and volume, with SEC as the unit code for t and LTR as the unit code for > liters, and link both via schema:valueReference, or better, and > owl:subProperty thereof. > > > > > > > > For the principle, see > > > > > > > > > http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/Structured_values_and_value_references > > > > > > > > > > > > schema:QuantativeValues supports all UN/CEFACT Common Codes for > units, which should cover all you need: > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Documentation/UN/CEFACT_Common_Codes > > > > > > > > (Mind the full list in the public Excel files, the page just > highlights a small subset.) > > > > > > > > Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen > > > > > > > > Martin Hepp > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > martin hepp > > > > e-business & web science research group > > > > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > > > > > > > e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de > > > > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > > > > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > > > > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > > > > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > > > > skype: mfhepp > > > > twitter: mfhepp > > > > > > > > Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! > > > > ================================================================= > > > > * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 01 May 2015, at 13:45, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ < > perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Wes, > > > > > > > > > > On 01/26/2014 07:20 AM, Wes Turner wrote: > > > > >> Say I am trying to share a tabular dataset. [1] There's metadata > for > > > > >> the Dataset, and there's metadata for the particular columns > (which > > > > >> applies to the particular data items). > > > > >> > > > > >> For example: > > > > >> > > > > >> t volume (liters) > > > > >> ----------------- > > > > >> 1 1 > > > > >> 2 0.7 > > > > >> 3 0.5 > > > > >> 4 0.3 > > > > >> 5 0.1 > > > > >> > > > > >> Questions > > > > >> =========== > > > > >> # Is there (a good) way to specify these units and quantities (in > > > > >> addition to XSD datatypes)? > > > > > You might like to check out > > > > > * https://iotdb.org/pub/iot-unit.html > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Wes Turner https://westurner.org https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/knowledge-engineering
Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 22:38:55 UTC