Need more cross-references to other unit collections

[steveraysteveray]

QUDT contains links to several other collections of unit definitions, including: UNECE IEC 61360 OM Wikipedia DBpedia ISO 80000 UCUM

Some of these sets of links are not fully populated. Also, there are other sets of unit definitions that we do not currently link to. It would be very helpful if anybody would be interested in adding additional links. If you would like to link to an additional collection, we will add an appropriate property to the schema. Please let us know and we will work with you.

[jhodgesatmb]

With respect to the IEC 61360 set, which QUDT doesn't (yet) map completely to, it builds explicit versions of unit multipliers (nano, pico, micro, milli, kilo, mega, giga, peta, ...) whereas in QUDT the most common multipliers for a unit have been implemented. There has been an open question about cluttering the vocabulary with multipliers but to cross reference to all IEC 61360 units QUDT will have to build at least the ones that the other standard implements.

Jack

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:33 PM steveraysteveray notifications@github.com wrote:

QUDT contains links to several other collections of unit definitions, including: UNECE IEC 61360 OM Wikipedia DBpedia ISO 80000 UCUM

Some of these sets of links are not fully populated. Also, there are other sets of unit definitions that we do not currently link to. It would be very helpful if anybody would be interested in adding additional links.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/qudt/qudt-public-repo/issues/30?email_source=notifications&email_token=AATQRWM4X3YZJW6DCMSKAK3QZFHUXA5CNFSM4J4CPER2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFUVEXG43VMWVGG33NNVSW45C7NFSM4IBFY72Q, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATQRWJIHYF6J55ZUUCIEBTQZFHUXANCNFSM4J4CPERQ .

-- Jack

[dr-shorthair]

Probably SWEET as well. https://github.com/ESIPFed/sweet/blob/master/src/reprSciUnits.ttl

[nicholascar]

I'm going to try and get SWEET to point the other way better and ultimately deprecate their (not so great) UoM offering in favour of QUDT.

[gwemon]

I have just uploaded 123 mappings onto the NERC Vocabulary Server linking QUDT units to units from our BODC P06 Unit vocabulary. P06 is used extensively in Europe by the SeaDataNet and OBIS communities. It is also mapped to CF Standard Names via the P07 vocabulary hosted on the NERC Vocabulary Server (see e.g. http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P06/current/UAAA/). I noticed a few inconsistencies int he QUDT naming conventions which I will create issue ticket for if it has not already been reported. Thanks.

[steveraysteveray]

Thanks for this! Looking forward to working more with you in the future.

[dr-shorthair]

I think the mapping is being managed from NVS P06 --> QUDT, and where QUDT is missing a unit needed by NVS, then it is being proposed and accepted. So QUDT --> P06 not needed.

[GeorgFerdinandSchneider]

Happy to add a relevant reference to this conversation

Keil, J. M., & Schindler, S. (2019). Comparison and evaluation of ontologies for units of measurement. Semantic Web, 10(1), 33-51. DOI: 10.3233/SW-180310

Keil & Schindler covered and analysed a wide range of well accepted vocabularies and ontologies of units.

[dr-shorthair]

@GeorgFerdinandSchneider However, the paper referred to QUDT v1. QUDT was improved a lot, and enlarged, in v2 with ongoing maintenance. So much of the analysis of QUDT in the paper is obsolete and not particularly relevant any more. (This was acknowledged in the paper.)

[steveraysteveray]

Indeed, the authors have stated that they intend to write a new version that uses QUDT v2.1, but I haven't seen any signs of it yet.