Open dr-shorthair opened 9 months ago
Just a bit lower in the wiki is this section. Does it answer your question?
Yes - it helps a bit. Quantity
is the concept (and may/should have a quantityKind
), QuantityValue
is a specifically scaled value.
But if the value for the Quantity
is only available with one uom, then the Quantity/quantityValue/QuantityValue
form can be shortened to just Quantity
??
Also: the example you refer to uses qudt:hasUnit
. Is that preferred to qudt:unit
?
Yes, that is the intent. Just one uom, you can use qudt:value and qudt:hasUnit directly. With multiple uoms, use qudt:quantityValue.
Also, yes, we are migrating toward qudt:hasUnit instead of qudt:unit for consistency with qudt:hasQuantityKind, as of Release 2.1.28
(Now that you mention it, maybe we should also migrate qudt:value to qudt:hasValue...)
I have a feeling this has been answered before, but I can't find it.
At https://github.com/qudt/qudt-public-repo/wiki/User-Guide-for-QUDT#1-simple-use-case the basic pattern for a QUDT encoded Quantity instance is shown thus:
However, looking at the OWL I see that a
qudt:Quantity
may have aqudt:quantityValue
property whose range is expected to be aqudt:QuantityValue
. (Note thatqudt:unit
andqudt:value
are not mentioned in the OWL.)Then the definition of
qudt:QuantityValue
isThis seems to be the same as
qudt:Quantity
except without theQuantityKind
reference. Is that correct?This also seems to imply alternative serialisations:
or
Which is recommended? Am I missing something here?