Re: URIs / Ontology for Physical Units and Quantities

x-posting from "Sustainable Codes vs Volatile URIs Re: URIs / Ontology for
Physical Units and Quantities":

* owl:sameAs "stringKey" ;



[ ... does not work when joining contexts between domains; thus justifying
use of URIs as keys]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Martin,
>>
>> For the record:
>> 1)      It appears that we (and perhaps many others on this list but
>> perhaps not everyone) agree that QUDT is very valuable.
>> 2)      I would not promise that assigning URIs to everything will bring
>> world peace or cure cancer, although it is certainly encouraging to see
>> Linked Data technology already being used in life sciences to help to
>> discover cures for diseases and more efficiently link together the
>> individual discoveries and evidence documented across several academic
>> papers, to obtain a wider end-to-end understanding of potential cause and
>> effect.
>>
>
> schema.org/MedicalEntity resources have URIs
>
> In regards to curing cancer and linked data:
>
> * https://wiki.nci.nih.gov/display/LexEVS/LexEVS+6.x+OWL+Export+Guide
> * https://github.com/ncbo/umls2rdf
> * http://data.linkedct.org/sparql
> * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3745940/
> * *http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html
> <http://schema.org/docs/meddocs.html>*
> * https://github.com/westurner/openfda-jsonld-testing
>   * https://github.com/westurner/elasticsearchjsonld
>     (ElasticSearch mapping -> JSON-LD context)
> * ... linksFrom: https://westurner.org/opengov/us/#openfda-fda
> *
>   * https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/knowledge-engineering#prov
>
>
>> 3)      I am very encouraged by Ralph's response today about the current
>> status and future plans for QUDT and have offered to provide some help with
>> beta testing etc.  To the request that Wes made, we might also be able to
>> provide a JSON-LD example of its usage in connection with markup of
>> nutritional information and ingredients of a food product, to give everyone
>> a more concrete example - at least for some units of mass (grams,
>> milligrams, micrograms) and energy (kilojoules and kilocalories).
>>
>>
> A nutritional example would be great.
>
> Ideas for examples for helpfully also demonstrating composition and
> transformation:
> * a smoothie
>
>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 May 2015, at 21:04, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <
>> martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Mark:
>> > For the record: QUDT is very, very valuable. But I am eagerly waiting
>> for the day someone promises that turning everything into URIs will bring
>> world peace or cure cancer .... (*)
>> >
>> >
>> > (*) Credits to Stuart Madnick (MIT), who created this in the context of
>> XML - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=281823
>> >
>> >
>> > Martin
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 07 May 2015, at 10:56, Mark Harrison <mark.harrison@cantab.net>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Martin,
>> >>
>> >> I understand your very valid concerns about Linked Data resources that
>> are not supported and maintained and end us wasting time for developers.
>> However, from this thread it also seems that there is quite some interest
>> in having a well recognised ontology for units of measure in which units
>> have corresponding stable URIs that link to definitions, UN ECE codes,
>> conversion factors and offsets, etc.  QUDT 1.1 made a very good start on
>> this, although it had one or two inaccurate cross-references.  For example,
>> I found within http://qudt.org/vocab/unit#Grain the following
>> nonsensical triple:
>> >>
>> >>      <http://qudt.org/vocab/unit#Grain>  skos:exactMatch  <
>> http://dbpedia.org/resource/Cereal> .
>> >>
>> >> There are some other gaps in QUDT 1.1, such as missing resources for
>> units such as milligram, microgram - and because the SI base unit of mass
>> is the kilogram, it is not sufficient to simply define the multipliers such
>> as 'milli', 'micro', because we don't usually talk about milligrams as
>> microkilograms, for example.
>> >>
>> >> Having said that, if QUDT 1.1 were updated, corrected, supported a
>> more complete set of units and provided cross-references to the
>> corresponding UN ECE Common Code values as strings, I think it (or
>> something very like it) could be an extremely valuable resource for
>> everyone, especially because of the conversion factors and offsets.
>> >>
>> >> The QUDT.org website appears to be last updated in March 2014 and
>> there is some information and a presentation by Ralph Hodgson (copied)
>> about the plans for release 2.0 of QUDT.  However, I'm not sure whether
>> that work has stalled or is under-resourced or is spending a long time in
>> careful internal review.  Maybe those of us who are interested in making
>> this happen could offer to share the workload and accelerate the progress.
>> In case NASA / TopQuadrant is no longer the place to host it, then perhaps
>> we could reasonably ask W3C to host it in perpetuity and maintain a liaison
>> with the UN, ISO and other relevant bodies to ensure that we're aware of
>> their changes that should be reflected through maintenance updates to such
>> a vocabulary.
>> >>
>> >> We're soon hoping to see much more structured data about products
>> being published openly on the web as linked data, potentially including
>> details about ingredients, nutrition and allergens.  GS1 has already
>> prepared begun drafting a web vocabulary [ see
>> http://www.gs1.org/gtin_plus_public_review ] to help manufacturers and
>> retailers express such information in much richer detail than they can
>> currently using schema.org alone - and efforts are underway to harmonise
>> this effort with schema.org to make life easier for developers.  I
>> expect that a stable supported ontology with URIs and Linked Data for units
>> of measure along the lines of a QUDT 2.0 could be far more useful to
>> software developers than simply denoting a unit of measure by its UN ECE
>> Common Code string.  We can certainly do better than that.  It could almost
>> certainly avoid a large amount of duplicated effort in coding conversion
>> factors and offsets and would also help to ensure that whether the product
>> specifications are provided in SI units or non-SI units (as they are in
>> different regions of the world), the same quantitative information is
>> readily available so software applications, without ambiguity or
>> unnecessary duplication of effort by developers.
>> >>
>> >> I hope that Ralph Hodgson can chime in with a brief status update on
>> QUDT 2.0 - and also that those of us who would be interested in helping to
>> accelerate this (or something similar) can step forward and offer to help
>> with reviewing it or beta testing it - or filling in the gaps for the
>> missing features.
>> >>
>> >> Best wishes,
>> >>
>> >> - Mark Harrison
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 7 May 2015, at 09:08, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>