Currently, there exist in OM several subclasses of scale that are defined as oneOf a single scale instance (singleton classes). Further, there exists the class Temperature_scale, which is defined as oneOf some temperature scale instances and thous IRI doesn't fit to the naming convention. I don't see the need for the singleton classes (class definitions could simply use 'has unit' value <the scale instance> instead) and the oneOf definitions violate some OWL profiles (#79).
wrong (according to Weather-example.md) restrictions of the om:Temperature and its subclasses regarding the use of om:hasUnit and om:hasScale (including #13)
Currently, there exist in OM several subclasses of scale that are defined as oneOf a single scale instance (singleton classes). Further, there exists the class Temperature_scale, which is defined as oneOf some temperature scale instances and thous IRI doesn't fit to the naming convention. I don't see the need for the singleton classes (class definitions could simply use
'has unit' value <the scale instance>
instead) and the oneOf definitions violate some OWL profiles (#79).I propose to remove
and to state for all scale instances
rdf:type om:ThermodynamicTemperatureScale
.