W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2020

RE: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]

From: Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 08:04:09 +0000
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.reynolds@epimorphics.com>, "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ME2PR01MB2882B86D2D82AC0B3659C3B4882C0@ME2PR01MB2882.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com>
  *   That just allows exchange of any measurements
This is the RDF application that we were discussing in this thread, I think - where the UCUM code only appears in the context of a measurement instance (i.e. a quantity) either embedded in the literal else appearing in a data-type.

I can see your point that QUDT may be violating the strict interpretation, so will attempt to clear that up separately. But I still content that the use-case canvassed in this thread is OK.

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.reynolds@epimorphics.com>
Sent: Thursday, 3 September, 2020 17:49
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: Blank nodes must DIE! [ was Re: Blank nodes semantics - existential variables?]

On 03/09/2020 03:43, Cox, Simon (L&W, Clayton) wrote:

Dan Brickley wrote (a while back):

?  On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 19:50, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us<mailto:phayes@ihmc.us?Subject=Re%3A%20Blank%20nodes%20must%20DIE!%20%5B%20was%20Re%3A%20Blank%20nodes%20semantics%20-%20%20existential%20variables%3F%5D&In-Reply-To=%3CCAFfrAFqgq7JxxwzEhYoMV70haRznXkjLBiOwhQUjwGJ0S0vsug%40mail.gmail.com%3E&References=%3CCAFfrAFqgq7JxxwzEhYoMV70haRznXkjLBiOwhQUjwGJ0S0vsug%40mail.gmail.com%3E>> wrote:


?  > Excellent. I have thought for some time that this way of using datatyping

?  > would be the right way to go. Congratulations on having actually done it :-)

?  >


?  This is really interesting. Every couple of years I stumble across UCUM (

?  http://unitsofmeasure.org/trac ->

?  http://unitsofmeasure.org/trac/wiki/TermsOfUse) before being scared away by

?  the prickly terms of use document. It is not a document that seems to

?  welcome re-use.


?  Dan

I've attempted to clarify this with Gunther Schadow, but can't get a response.
Meanwhile, I was pointed to this service which does quantity conversions based on UCUM codes:

  *   Form UI - https://ucum.nlm.nih.gov/ucum-lhc/demo.html
  *   API - https://ucum.nlm.nih.gov/ucum-service.html
FWIW QUDT now has basic UCUM support as well - https://github.com/qudt/qudt-public-repo/blob/master/schema/SCHEMA_QUDT-v2.1.ttl#L2924

I peered into the UCUM Terms of Use document and I believe this is the relevant clause:

  *   5) UCUM codes and other information from the UCUM table may be used in electronic messages communicating measurements without the need to include this Copyright Notice and License or a reference thereto in the message (and without the need to include all fields required by Section 7 hereof).
So I think we are in the clear to use UCUM codes in the manner that has been discussed in this conversation.

I disagree.

That just allows exchange of any measurements, it doesn't allow use of UCUM codes within metadata. Any service which, for example, provided metadata on units of measures and included UCUM codes as part of that metadata would be in violation. Assuming it including non UCUM metadata then it would violate the "not add any new contents" element of clause 2. If you kept the UCUM codes separate and included all the fields required then you might be able to claim that as the "master term dictionary" use allowed under clause 7 but then would have to show how you were satisfying the notice requirement which has no such corresponding allowance for "electronic messages".

I am not a lawyer and so what I say here carries no value. Perhaps the QUDT folks, if they are now using UCUM, have a documented legal opinion that suggests more flexible reuse is possible.


Simon J D Cox
Research Scientist - Environmental Informatics<https://research.csiro.au/ei>
Team Leader - Environmental Information Infrastructure
CSIRO Land and Water<http://www.csiro.au/Research/LWF>

E simon.cox@csiro.au<mailto:simon.cox@csiro.au> T +61 3 9545 2365 M +61 403 302 672
   Mail: Private Bag 10, Clayton South, Vic 3169
   Visit: Central Reception, Research Way, Clayton, Vic 3168  ///honey.zebra.chip<https://w3w.co/honey.zebra.chip>
   Workstation: Building 209 ///couple.page.roses<https://w3w.co/couple.page.roses>
   Deliver: Gate 3, Normanby Road, Clayton, Vic 3168
Twitter @dr_shorthair<https://twitter.com/dr_shorthair>
CSIRO acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and we pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

The information contained in this email may be confidential or privileged. Any unauthorised use or disclosure is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately and notify the sender by return email. Thank you. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained or that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or interference.
CSIRO Australia's National Science Agency  |  csiro.au<https://www.csiro.au/>
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2020 08:05:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:05 UTC