CommonCoreOntology
Use QUDT vs CCO for measurement units
As discussed on today's BFO-CCO office hours, see branch qudt for a transformed version of QUDT that is more idiomatic for CCO.
[heart] John Beverley reacted to your message:
From: Alan Ruttenberg @.> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2024 6:15:19 PM To: CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: [CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies] Use QUDT vs CCO for measurement units (Issue #307)
As discussed on today's BFO-CCO office hours, see branch qudt for a transformed version of QUDT that is more idiomatic for CCO.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies/issues/307, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD4ZM24PSHKTKUUOU5LQABDZOKG3PAVCNFSM6AAAAABLQ642L6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGQZTENZVGY4TMMQ. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
Direct link to the branch https://github.com/CommonCoreOntology/CommonCoreOntologies/tree/qudt
@alanruttenberg Opening AllCoreOntology.ttl in Protege didn't load the measurement-units ontology properly. It took my aged eyes a little while to spot why. The URL for the measurement units ontology is:
http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/Mid/UnitOfMeasureOntology
"Unit" rather than "Units". Also, the default prefix is:
http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/Mid/UnitOfMeasureOntology#
It should end with a "/", right?
Plus a typo: README.md refers to qudt-readme.org rather than qudt-readme.md.
The default prefix doesn't matter because it is unused. Protege thinks every ontology uses the ontology IRI as a prefix, but it doesn't. Either Protege or the OWLAPI adds the @base automatically. I've left it unchanged relative to master.
Recording issues as I find them.
- The definitions are of datatype qudt:LatexString. We don't want to introduce new datatypes. Some terms have a text only definition on another property. If we use this we'll have to decide whether to leave the definitions with latex embedded or whether to somehow strip those out.
- The unit systems should get labels
Alan; I think I saw another datatype of htmltext or something similar, Haven't scanned for more. Similar issue with embedded HTML markup.
Last commit removed the custom datatypes and cleaned the HTML, very few tags were used. <strong> parts got asterisks around them, <em> parts got underscores around them, and x<sup>2</sup> forms translated to x^2
Latex in definitions remain. I'm looking into how they might be rendered as text.
FWIW the BIPM have established a set of RDF definitions for the SI here: https://si-digital-framework.org/ There has been some collaboration between QUDT and BIPM on this project. Obviously, the scope of the BIPM offer is much smaller, but arguably 'authoritative' on the numbers at least.
