- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:43:21 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[Jon Hanna] > > Thinking about this I'm struck my the notion that the model of the example > is wrong, a line doesn't have a cm length and a in length, it has a single > length which can be described in either cm or in. > That is what I meant in my recent post, though you have expressed it more simply. [Danny Ayers said] > I must admit I'm also not entirely sure of the value of being able to > express this particular kind of equivalence/operation (like units-cm = > 2.54*units-inch) in the first place, I would have expected the role of OWL > to express just that it was a "units conversion operation" and to help > locate a service that could deal, rather than handling any operation itself. I agree, if we want to find a web service to convert from inches to centimeter we may be talking about a process. But I have a lot of trouble with the thought that I need to invoke a web service every time I want to do a lousy little units conversion! But I was not thinking of actually making a transformation but of determining equivalence. If I get a statement from one source that a particular refrigerator is 76.2 cm wide, and from another source that it is 30 inches wide - or needs to fit into a space 30.5 inches wide - I would like to be able to know if they are compatible or not. Granted, I could operationally test that by making the calculation. Or I could compute the scaling factor and see if it agrees with the known value. There are many procedures I could use, but just one underlying relationship. I would rather capture the underlying notion than encode one specific procedure for applying it, if I could. Cheers, Tom P
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 09:42:12 UTC