• To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Re: An approach to describing the relationships betweenunits-of-measure
• From: "Bob Foster" <bob@o...>
• Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 13:27:50 -0500
• References: <"030724103711Z.WT10348. 38*/PN=Pete.Kirkham/OU=Technical/OU=NOTES/O=BAe MAA/PRMD=BAE/ADMD=GOLD 400/C=GB/"@MHS> <3F1FC275.F9ABC590@m...>

> Here is a description of kilometer:
>
>     baseUOM(kilometer) --> meter
>     subPropertyOf(kilometer) --> uom
>     domain(kilometer) --> Distance
>     range(kilometer) --> xsd:decimal
>     canonical(range(kilometer)) --> Formula
>     precision(Formula) --> xsd:nonNegativeInteger

kilometer is a function that accepts a Distance and produces a pure number?
How odd.

It seems that kilometer, if it is to be viewed as a function, must operate
only on the unit of measure property without affecting the type of the
value. If the domain is Distance, the range must be Distance; the difference
is that the argument distance is expressed in some (unspecified above) unit
of measure and the result distance is expressed in kilometers.

Bob Foster

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: An approach to describing the relationships betweenunits-of-measure
    • From: "Jeff Greif" <jgreif@a...>

• References:
  • Re: An approach to describing the relationships betweenunits-of-measure
    • From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml-utterly-practical (was RE: Advice: inline node editing, or not?)
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: Re: An approach to describing the relationships betweenunits-of-measure
• Next by thread: Re: Re: An approach to describing the relationships betweenunits-of-measure
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread