Re: URIs / Ontology for Physical Units and Quantities

Dear Kingsley:
Technically, as we agree, this is no big deal. 

But there are so many abandoned RDF / Semantic Web efforts rottening on the Web and wasting the time of developers who try to built something on top of it -- until they find out that the project is way out of date -- that I do not see any gain in such a quick fix.

Martin


> On 07 May 2015, at 01:25, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5/6/15 6:31 PM, 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
> 
> Martin,
> 
> What's wrong with:
> 
> <#someResolvableVariantOfIdentifier>
> a owl:Thing ;
> dcterms:identifier "{literal-variant-of-standard-identifier}" .
> 
> Which can be further embellished by Linked Data publisher in their ontology/vocabulary by adding the following:
> 
> dcterms:identifier
> a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
> 
> Productive workflow:
> 
> 1. Get the data dump in a spreadsheet
> 2. Save as CSV
> 3. Load into LOD or Google Refine
> 4. Map to relevant ontology (existing, or new)
> 5. Dump data into an RDF document
> 6. Publish (note: using # as indexical mechanism makes the publication Linked Open Data prinicples compliant off-the bat).
> 
> 
> It can be done quite easily. I deliberatly opted not to do it :)
> 
> 
> Kingsley
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen 
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 08:08:35 UTC