>> Hence we can say:
>>
>> :T_101 iso6892-1:upperYieldStrength
>> [ a :UniaxialStress ; :expressedAs
>> [ number: "400" ; reference: :MPa ] ] .
>>
>
> I take it that this is RDF, and could be expressed using triples using
> a blank node, thus:
>
> :T_101 iso6892-1:upperYieldStrength _:x .
> _:x :expressedAs "400"^^:MPa .
> _:x rdf:type :UniaxialStress . (01)
I interpret the original as this: (02)
:T_101 iso6892-1:upperYieldStrength _:x .
_:x rdf:type :UniaxialStress .
_:x :expressedAs _:y .
_:y :number "400" .
_:y :reference :MPa . (03)
The difference is subtle, but the 400 in the original has no datatype,
and I'm not convinced it's always appropriate to move information stored
in the triple into the datatype. (04)
I would vote that the transformation from my statements to yours be one
that should be "built-in" (as long as the transformation process
provides the appropriate (laconic?) (precise?) justification), and be
even more specific, mapping :number into rdf:value and :reference into
uom:unit (05)
_:y rdf:value "400"^^xsd::double .
_:y uom:unit :MPa . (06)
Assuming that the range of :MPa is specified as xsd:double someplace. (07)
Joel (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (09)
|