More minor tweaks

[mgberg]

This includes the following:

• Add rdfs:Resource as an explicit superclass of qudt:Concept in the SHACL schema as all other classes defined there have an explicit superclass and some tools complain about one not existing
• Standardize a symbol for one unit
• Replace Kilogram?force with Kilogram Force in the labels for a few units

[jhodgesatmb]

Kilogram is not part of the QUDT vocabulary or, at least, doesn’t comply with our naming conventions for qnames, and we generally take the label from the qname. It should be KiloGM, and KiloGM_Force, as the qualifier follows the unit with an underscore. The label could be “kilogram force” but should not have a question mark or a hyphen between “kilogram” and “force”.Sent from my iPadOn Jun 28, 2023, at 8:10 AM, Matt Goldberg ***@***.***> wrote:This includes the following: Add rdfs:Resource as an explicit superclass of qudt:Concept in the SHACL schema as all other classes defined there have an explicit superclass and some tools complain about one not existing Standardize a symbol for one unit Replace Kilogram?force with Kilogram-Force in the labels for a few units You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:   #722 Commit Summary d3f91dc Add explicit superclass for qudt:Concept in the SHACL schema to satisfy certain tools 532e5f9 Minor tweak to a couple unit labels with '?' in them and a unit symbol File Changes (2 files) M schema/shacl/SCHEMA_QUDT_NoOWL-v2.1.ttl (1) M vocab/unit/VOCAB_QUDT-UNITS-ALL-v2.1.ttl (14) Patch Links: https://github.com/qudt/qudt-public-repo/pull/722.patch https://github.com/qudt/qudt-public-repo/pull/722.diff —Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because your review was requested.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mgberg]

@jhodgesatmb I've updated those labels per your above comment.

[steveraysteveray]

Unfortunately, now I have a problem! The phrase "Kilogram Force Meter" is misleading (to me) because the first blank stands in for "of" while the second blank means "multiplied by".

I would suggest we include the word "of", as in "Kilogram of force Meter"
Thoughts, anyone?

[mgberg]

Unfortunately, now I have a problem! The phrase "Kilogram Force Meter" is misleading (to me) because the first blank stands in for "of" while the second blank means "multiplied by".

I would suggest we include the word "of", as in "Kilogram of force Meter" Thoughts, anyone?

Yeah that's why I originally had the hyphen. It's not uncommon to write the gravitational force units with the corresponding mass unit followed by -force. For example, see the Wikipedia page.

[jhodgesatmb]

Excellent point Matt, and makes my earlier suggestion obtuse at best. We have been discussing this and, in this (and similar but not all cases) case, we believe that the label should follow the qname convention with an underscore rather than a hyphen: KiloGM_F --> Kilogram_Force <== SUGGESTED LABEL approach to clarify and disambiguate and then your example becomes KiloGM_F-M --> Kilogram_Force Meter <== SUGGESTION APPLIED TO YOUR EXAMPLE My parenthetical comment above is illustrated by the following cases: CM_H20 --> Centimeter of Water CUP_US --> Cup (US) CTW_LONG --> Long Hundred Weight C_Ab --> Abcoulomb All easily found with the following query: *SELECT* ?qun ?qunl *WHERE* { ?qun rdf:type qudt:Unit . ?qun rdfs:label ?qunl . *FILTER* (fn:contains(smf:qname(?qun), "_")) . }

…

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 9:36 AM Matt Goldberg ***@***.***> wrote: Unfortunately, now I have a problem! The phrase "Kilogram Force Meter" is misleading (to me) because the first blank stands in for "of" while the second blank means "multiplied by". I would suggest we include the word "of", as in "Kilogram of force Meter" Thoughts, anyone? Yeah that's why I originally had the hyphen. It's not an uncommon way to write that, for example see the Wikipedia page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram-force>. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#722 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATQRWOQBL3MDH5RA2CUK5LXNRMPDANCNFSM6AAAAAAZXIYGZE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Jack

[mgberg]

I'm curious about the context for that discussion. I can definitely understand a desire to create more standardized labels. However, why would one expect a label, which (in general) exists to be human-readable and match what the community would identify with, to derive from the lname convention which (in general) does not need to be human-readable?

In this case, I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the "normal"/"expected" way to write this is kilogram-force; in fact, a quick Google search will show it written that way a large majority of the time. It doesn't seem that different than how Centimeter of Water is a "normal" way to write out unit:CM_H2O.

[jhodgesatmb]

We acknowledge that there are communities that prefer the hyphenated version and they have their reasons for doing so. We also have our reasons for suggesting the underscore. If people are using the QUDT schema/vocabularies then they might be confused by the use of an underscore in the qname and a hyphen in the label. Suggesting the underscore is an attempt to ameliorate that particular type of confusion as long as it doesn't conflict with the labels used in the standards. We agree that a label is just an annotation and that people should not be using an annotation in a search or in reasoning, and so its content doesn't have to be curated in the same way as the rest of the ontology. Both approaches resolve the ambiguity illustrated in your example, but the hyphen adds back a type of ambiguity we would like to avoid. Everything else in your PR is acceptable.

…

On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 11:07 AM Matt Goldberg ***@***.***> wrote: I'm curious about the context for that discussion. Why would one expect a label, which (in general) exists to be human-readable and match what the community would identify with, to derive from the lname convention which (in general) does not need to be human-readable? In this case, I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the "normal"/"expected" way to write this is kilogram-force; in fact, a quick Google search will show it written that way a large majority of the time. It doesn't seem that different than how Centimeter of Water is a "normal" way to write out unit:CM_H2O. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#722 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATQRWMVTJLQNHF4HZZCFM3XNRXENANCNFSM6AAAAAAZXIYGZE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Jack

[mgberg]

I made the change.