• To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>
• Subject: Re: An approach to describing the relationships betweenunits-of-measure
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 20:43:41 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3F1BCFC6.D23FEA71@m...>
• References: <3F1BCFC6.D23FEA71@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Roger L. Costello wrote:

> Comments?  Suggestions?

Not everything has to be declared ;)

I think the issue with this approach is to avoid trying define a 
REL(kilometer, mile) function in OWL, when all you really need to do 
is denote the function with a name in OWL and use a programming 
language (or calculus) to define it. Using MathML is pushing the 
problem soemwhat around, since MathML doesn't have an MT (to my 
knowledge). I could just as well provided a scripting language hook 
in CDATA, or an XSLT fragment and declared /that/ as the function 
(akin to providing a lambda evaluation instead of a name as Tom 
pointed out).

Arguably it's just as useful to fix the name of a function and not 
the function itself since not all functions have constant results. 
Consider how we'd model currency exchange rates using set 
containment rather than simply naming the rates.

Bill de hÓra

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

• Prev by Date: Re: rss regularis(z)ation
• Next by Date: RE: rss regularis(z)ation
• Previous by thread: Re: An approach to describing the relationships between units-of-measure
• Next by thread: Re: An approach to describing the relationships between units-of-measure
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread