QuantityKind shouldn't refer to dul:Region

[VladimirAlexiev]

The definition borrowed from QUDT is simple and understandable, but the definition borrowed from DUL may only be satisfactory to a topologist or philosopher. "any region in a dimensional space... maximal Region... minimal Region": sorry to say, but these sound very abstract.

• Eg UNECE Rec20 (and maybe QUDT) include some customary units like "pairs", "masterboxes" or even "military sticks". Can you tell me what is the dimensional space for these units?
• Or deciBel, which is defined on a logarithmic scale: what is its dimensional space, and is it the same or different from the one of Percent?

Coming from an engineer like Maxime of LINDT fame, this love of abstract ontologies and topological concepts is surprising. I suggest to kill these borrowings from, and the references to, DUL. https://github.com/Accord-Project/aec3po/blob/5fb6f7e2b8b9f0f208caeeab68461aa8b3c0dfcd/src/quantity_kinds.ttl#L29

[maximelefrancois86]

definition simplified in commit a83c0a1 note updated to reflect this is only my point of view.