jhodgesatmb
commented
1 year ago Over time there have been different people contributing to the vocabulary and labels and descriptions never had a stipulated mechanism or preferred source. Many labels and definitions came from standards such as ISO 80000, while others came from Wikipedia, etc. you can see the problem.All this said, and given that both labels and descriptions are annotations provided to build trust for humans, the focus has and will remain a robust semantic model and associated vocabulary. We welcome contributions to correct or augment the vocabulary, and you are encouraged to submit pull requests as described on the GitHub wiki.Jack Hodges, Ph.D.Arbor StudiosOn Aug 9, 2023, at 3:16 PM, Connor Cantrell @.***> wrote: I first want to express our admiration for your efforts in this library. For us at Mapped, QUDT is an unparalleled asset to our ontology. We've pinpointed an area that could be improved upon — the consistency and depth of unit descriptions. While some descriptions are exhaustive, others seem to be missing details or do not consistently have complete sentences. This description is thorough and comprehensive: unit:V a qudt:Unit ; dcterms:description "\(\textit{Volt} is the SI unit of electric potential. Separating electric charges creates potential energy, which can be measured in energy units such as joules. Electric potential is defined as the amount of potential energy present per unit of charge. Electric potential is measured in volts, with one volt representing a potential of one joule per coulomb of charge. The name of the unit honors the Italian scientist Count Alessandro Volta (1745-1827), the inventor of the first battery. The volt also may be expressed with a variety of other units. For example, a volt is also equal to one watt per ampere (W/A) and one joule per ampere per second (J/A/s).\)"^^qudt:LatexString ;
However, we also encounter units such as the following: unit:TON_F_US a qudt:Unit ; dcterms:description "unit of the force according to the American system of units"^^rdf:HTML ;
This brevity could benefit from the clarity and depth of a complete sentence. We're dedicated to highlighting and proposing enhancements to specific units descriptions of interest that are lacking clarity. While we can consistently offer these contributions, the breadth of units in QUDT means our contributions will be limited in comparison to the total amount of existing units that require revised descriptions. Therefore, we want to suggest an internal review of all units by the QUDT team to ensure consistent quality and clarity across the board.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
connorjcantrell
I first want to express our admiration for your efforts in this library. For us at Mapped, QUDT is an unparalleled asset to our ontology.
We've pinpointed an area that could be improved upon — the consistency and depth of unit descriptions. While some descriptions are exhaustive, others seem to be missing details or do not consistently have complete sentences.
This description is thorough and comprehensive:
However, we also encounter units such as the following:
This brevity could benefit from the clarity and depth of a complete sentence.
We're dedicated to highlighting and proposing enhancements to specific units descriptions of interest that are lacking clarity. While we can consistently offer these contributions, the breadth of units in QUDT means our contributions will be limited in comparison to the total amount of existing units that require revised descriptions. Therefore, we want to suggest an internal review of all units by the QUDT team to ensure consistent quality and clarity across the board.