search

solid / vocab

Solid Vocabularies
https://solid.github.io/vocab/
42 stars 14 forks source link

Proposal for a byte unit ontology #35

Closed kjetilk closed 5 years ago

kjetilk commented 5 years ago

Since I would need an ontology/vocabulary if we were to go with the first alternative of #29 , I decided to sit down and draft one.

Units are a little bit awkward in RDF, I feel, so it is a bit hackish to do it this way, but I think it simplifies things greatly, as evident by the example in #29, where many more triples were needed.

Does this look reasonable? Could we have an ns URI for it?

kjetilk commented 5 years ago

Uhm, rereading the spec, I found that I had misunderstood what owl:DatatypeProperty is, so hold on, I need to do more reading here...

kjetilk commented 5 years ago

This has no formal definition, but it should be OK for RDF applications I think...

kjetilk commented 5 years ago

BTW, I'm thinking that you could encode the conversion between different units by having the multiplier between them available. Is there a standard way to do this?

kjetilk commented 5 years ago

Sure! I added that.

kjetilk commented 5 years ago

Are we sure these are not duplicated elsewhere?

I haven't found them anywhere, I have looked in LOV and on Google.

I suppose the "units as datatype" pattern isn't what people tend to prefer, but I think it is often the simplest.

The re should be a machine readable expression of the ratios bewteeen them.

Absolutely, I mentioned that in my own comment above, but I'm not good enough with OWL to know if it could be done with the datatype definition standard (I am aware it is there)

I could include a property e.g. :multiplier for it to denote the multiplier between the unit and a byte, though.

However, I think that could wait, we have a lot of urgent issues open. So, I hope we can get this done now, and that we can add that later.

Where do we need these?

I use it in the quota system: https://github.com/solid/node-solid-server/blob/feature/check-quota/lib/utils.js#L271 I'm just supporting some of the units there, and notes that we should have that multiplier in the ontology.

kjetilk commented 5 years ago

Seems we went for simplification in #29