Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use QUDT vs CCO for measurement units #307

Open
alanruttenberg opened this issue Jul 26, 2024 · 8 comments
Open

Use QUDT vs CCO for measurement units #307

alanruttenberg opened this issue Jul 26, 2024 · 8 comments
Labels
for 2.1 release These are changes we would like to see addressed under the 2.1 release

Comments

@alanruttenberg
Copy link
Contributor

As discussed on today's BFO-CCO office hours, see branch qudt for a transformed version of QUDT that is more idiomatic for CCO.

@johnbeve
Copy link
Contributor

johnbeve commented Jul 26, 2024 via email

@alanruttenberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swartik
Copy link

swartik commented Jul 26, 2024

@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.

@alanruttenberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swartik thanks! fixed.

@alanruttenberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@alanruttenberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

alanruttenberg commented Jul 26, 2024

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

@dlutz2
Copy link

dlutz2 commented Jul 27, 2024

Alan;
I think I saw another datatype of htmltext or something similar, Haven't scanned for more. Similar issue with embedded HTML markup.

@alanruttenberg
Copy link
Contributor Author

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.

@neilotte neilotte added the for 2.0 release This label indicates updates to be made in the 2.0 release, which will include a new IRI format. label Aug 18, 2024
@neilotte neilotte added this to the All issues tagged for 2.0 are addressed milestone Aug 19, 2024
@neilotte neilotte added for 2.1 release These are changes we would like to see addressed under the 2.1 release and removed for 2.0 release This label indicates updates to be made in the 2.0 release, which will include a new IRI format. labels Oct 19, 2024
@neilotte neilotte removed this from the All issues tagged for 2.0 are addressed milestone Nov 3, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
for 2.1 release These are changes we would like to see addressed under the 2.1 release
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants