Why OWL Unit Ontology has no Log/Exp (Was: Re: OWL ontology for unit)
brian.thomas at gsfc.nasa.gov
Tue Sep 2 07:16:17 PDT 2003
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 03:48 am, David Berry wrote:
> Once you have analysed the unit string into its basic SI units and the
> relationships between them, it is surely possible to use this analysis to
> work out the transformation between them - without the need for any
> further ontologes. The Starlink AST library for manipulating WCS
> information (http://axp0.ast.man.ac.uk/~dsb/ast/ast.html) does this.
I agree. In fact in the original draft that Ed showed to me we discussed
whether or not the mathematical functions should be included. I believe
the last thought was that, no, these should be separate, and perhaps
belong in another schema/ontology or library. The log and exp functions
were seen as being part of said "other half". WCS probably is a good point
to start looking for requirements on this set of mathematical functions
needed for full unit represenation.
The beauty of having OWL, IMO, is that it should bridge over to UML, and thence
actual code fairly easily, with the bonus that you are deriving all of the code and
fundemental functionality from the ontology. In that sense, you can have
mathematical ontologies work (eg. just have to transform them into something else).
More information about the dm