Missing MBTUs? #597
Labels
Comments
|
Jason,
QUDT has a published logic for defining unit qnames. Prefixes such as
‘Mega’ are not preferred but required by this convention. Label annotations
and symbols can follow international standards conventions.
As a curiosity, why would it matter what the unit qname is? After all, it
is not a part of the semantic structure of the unit but a unique namespace
identifier.
I have forgotten about the BACnet unit model. The .ttl version I have has
this:
EngineeringUnits:megaBtus
rdf:type dtype:EnumeratedValue ;
dtype:code "148"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger ;
dtype:value "megaBtus"^^xsd:string .
I do not see any meaningful structure here. It is just a member of an
enumerated type and has a code. Has the model been improved upon since this
version (<http://bacowl.sourceforge.net/2012/bacnet>) was published?
We have discussed various methods of cross referencing units across
different models. Perhaps a BACnet cross reference would be a better
solution that trying to make the units be equivalent. I will toss this out
for discussion as there may very well be other considerations than those I
have voiced here.
Jack Hodges, Ph.D.
Arbor Studios
…On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 3:32 PM Jason B. Koh ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi all, I just found that MBTU (million BTU) is missing in the QUDT unit
vocabulary. MBTU is a common term as well as BACnet also has mega-BTUs
(148) as a unit. Is it something QUDT would consider to include? If so, I
can create a PR, though I'd like to also know QUDT's preference on MBTU vs
MegaBTU (or even MMBTU?).
Thanks!
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#597>, or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATQRWLR6SMENGRIEBGVHXDWGBCGHANCNFSM6AAAAAARTQ2B7Q>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
--
Jack
|
|
Hi Jack, I don't have any preferences on the qnames; as stated in my comment, I'm fine with MBTU / MegaBTU / MMBTU or whatever QUDT conventions prefer. I just don't see anything defined for such a concept in the existing vocabualry set in either this repo or the catalog. Maybe I missed the exact term, and if that's the case, I'd appreciate any pointer to it. At least I can't see MegaBtus anywhere. |
|
It may not be in the catalog yet. We do not create prefix units for all prefixes; only by request/submission. Otherwise how would we know anyone needs it? No need to make the catalog larger than necessary.Jack Hodges, Ph.D.Arbor StudiosOn Oct 31, 2022, at 4:42 PM, Jason B. Koh ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Jack,
I don't have any preferences on the qnames; as stated in my comment, I'm fine with MBTU / MegaBTU / MMBTU or whatever QUDT conventions prefer. I just don't see anything defined for such a concept in the existing vocabualry set in either this repo or the catalog. Maybe I missed the exact term, and if that's the case, I'd appreciate any pointer to the term. At least I can't see MegaBtus anywhere.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
If you don’t see it with a simple query it isn’t there. You could look for all BTU variants in the query. I’d do it but I am mobile at the moment.Jack Hodges, Ph.D.Arbor StudiosOn Oct 31, 2022, at 4:42 PM, Jason B. Koh ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Jack,
I don't have any preferences on the qnames; as stated in my comment, I'm fine with MBTU / MegaBTU / MMBTU or whatever QUDT conventions prefer. I just don't see anything defined for such a concept in the existing vocabualry set in either this repo or the catalog. Maybe I missed the exact term, and if that's the case, I'd appreciate any pointer to the term. At least I can't see MegaBtus anywhere.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
The OWL ontology for BACnet has been abandoned as unworkable and there is a new SHACL based model in process. The basics are the same, it is just an enumeration and the code is what appears on the wire between communicating peers (which is defined in ASN.1 for the tidbit of the day you didn't need to know). Assuming that |
|
Personally those ‘tidbits’ are the interesting part for me. Anyway, we will find a way to integrate BACnet units with QUDT. Perhaps Steve has input into the approachJack Hodges, Ph.D.Arbor StudiosOn Oct 31, 2022, at 10:03 PM, Joel Bender ***@***.***> wrote:
I do not see any meaningful structure here. It is just a member of an enumerated type and has a code.
The OWL ontology for BACnet has been abandoned as unworkable and there is a new SHACL based model in process. The basics are the same, it is just an enumeration and the code is what appears on the wire between communicating peers (which is defined in ASN.1 for the tidbit of the day you didn't need to know). Assuming that "148"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger is not the friendliest content and it gets mapped to bacnet:EngineeringUnits-megaBtus, it would be nice to have some reference between this IRI and something in QUDT.
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Hi @jbkoh. I have been called out of town until Thursday, but @jhodgesatmb is correct. Just submit a PR, following our naming rules here and we will incorporate whatever prefixed units you want. We can also think about bidirectional cross-references (of course the BACnet people would do the incoming reference to QUDT if they choose). |
|
Jason,
Sorry I was out for so long. Running this query:
*SELECT* *
*WHERE* {
?unitC (rdfs:subClassOf)* qudt:Unit .
?unit a ?unitC .
?unit rdfs:label ?ulab .
*FILTER* (fn:contains(?ulab, "BTU")) .
}
shows that the vocabulary has no prefix versions of BTU at the present
time. Steve sent you the link to the submission guidelines for PRs and that
includes the qname naming conventions (etc). I suspect that there are other
BACnet-specific units that are missing.
Jack
…On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 5:54 AM steveraysteveray ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi @jbkoh <https://github.com/jbkoh>. I have been called out of town
until Thursday, but @jhodgesatmb <https://github.com/jhodgesatmb> is
correct. Just submit a PR, following our naming rules here
<https://github.com/qudt/qudt-public-repo/wiki/Unit-Vocabulary-Submission-Guidelines>
and we will incorporate whatever prefixed units you want. We can also think
about bidirectional cross-references (of course the BACnet people would do
the incoming reference to QUDT if they choose).
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#597 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATQRWORGZ6UBNICKBPM6ODWGEHJ5ANCNFSM6AAAAAARTQ2B7Q>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Jack
|
|
Joel,
I am a bit confused by your comment. SHACL is really an extension to OWL that provides validation support, but if there is no structure then there is nothing to validate. Do you have the baseURI for this model? Is someone working on the QUDT integration with this ontology, or do you think a cross reference would be more appropriate? Thank you.
Jack
…Sent from my iPad
On Oct 31, 2022, at 10:03 PM, Joel Bender ***@***.***> wrote:
I do not see any meaningful structure here. It is just a member of an enumerated type and has a code.
The OWL ontology for BACnet has been abandoned as unworkable and there is a new SHACL based model in process. The basics are the same, it is just an enumeration and the code is what appears on the wire between communicating peers (which is defined in ASN.1 for the tidbit of the day you didn't need to know). Assuming that "148"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger is not the friendliest content and it gets mapped to bacnet:EngineeringUnits-megaBtus, it would be nice to have some reference between this IRI and something in QUDT.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you commented.
|
|
I don't see SHACL as an extension to OWL, it doesn't use OWL classes or concepts and it's closed world dealing with what actually exists as stated in a graph rather that open world of what somebody might say someplace in the universe. There is absolutely a structure to BACnet and a one-to-one serialization of BACnet concepts and data to RDF statements, and there are shapes that can validate each of those according to the rules as it has been defined by the committee, but they do not follow the rules of a decidable subset of first order logic! I've been able to squeak in references to The base URI will be owned by ASHRAE with a resolvable URI someplace in https://data.ashrae.org/bacnet but that will be up to the Data Modeling Working Group (DM-WG) to decide. Because ASHRAE has not been in the publishing business outside of PDF documents, the Manager of Standards has agreed that the SSPC would provide an acceptable level of oversight. I've been using https://data.ashrae.org/bacnet/2020/bacnet.ttl in my presentations because that's the latest version, ANSI uses the ASHRAE numbering, the ISO version is ISO 16484-6:2020. A cross-reference with things like |
|
Thank you for this information Joel. QUDT is committed to integrating with
other/all unit standards and we have been working on cross references or
direct integrations with them. The good news is that unit ontologies are
all trying to represent the same thing, though sometimes in different ways,
such as with different qnames, different labels, or different symbols.
Since these are annotations they are not problematic. When the unit models
are a part of another ontology, such as a building-related ontology, then
it is more complicated. Should QUDT integrate with every domain ontology
that has chosen to build a model of units, or should we stick to existing
unit standards and recommend that these other models map to the standards.
It is a challenge we are still working on, and your suggested approach is
one that has been proposed.
Assuming that there are exact matches (as you suggest with the
degrees-fahrenheit example, i.e., no conflicts) between BACnet and QUDT
units, then we can support a cross reference to BACnet units in the QUDT
vocabulary rather than external to it. By your comment that the xref would
be maintained as a separate document, I am guessing you are interested in
using something like SSSOM (we have only recently been made aware of it). I
see SSSOM working for exact matches (though less efficient than a cross
reference within the QUDT vocabulary, but it would be more complicated if
there isn't an exact match. For example, if there are dependencies in the
BACnet unit model to other concepts in BACnet, or if there is a conflict in
the model structure between the BACnet unit model and the QUDT unit model,
then it would be better to build a structural mapping between BACnet and
QUDT than to have a cross reference or direct integration. Since ASHRAE is
the owner of this model, then if you want the cross reference to reside
within the QUDT vocabulary, then someone on your team would have to perform
the analysis and create the PR to the QUDT vocabulary. Since Jason started
this thread and volunteered to create the PR I see no reason to not move
forward to see what comes of it, but he could also do an SSSOM mapping if
you prefer. We are thinking of placing such mapping files into the QUDT
extensions but if ASHRAE would prefer to manage the mapping that is
understandable. I thought that looking at the model beforehand might make
this process go faster but we can save the review until the PR is
produced/submitted if that is what you prefer.
Approaches:
- Verified exact matches between the BACnet and QUDT unit models
- Can create a cross reference to BACnet units from QUDT units
- Can create an SSSOM mapping to BACnet units from QUDT units and manage
in the QUDT github repo
- Can create an SSSOM mapping to QUDT units from BACnet units and manage
in the BACnet repo
- BACnet and QUDT unit models are semantically different or have
conflicting dependencies
- Can create an ontology mapping from the QUDT unit model to the BACnet
unit model, and associated instance mappings and manage as suggested above
Jack
…On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 9:22 PM Joel Bender ***@***.***> wrote:
I don't see SHACL as an extension to OWL, it doesn't use OWL classes or
concepts and it's closed world dealing with what actually exists as stated
in a graph rather that open world of what somebody might say someplace in
the universe. There is absolutely a structure to BACnet and a one-to-one
serialization of BACnet concepts and data to RDF statements, and there are
shapes that can validate each of those according to the rules as it has
been defined by the committee, but they do not follow the rules of a
decidable subset of first order logic! I've been able to squeak in
references to rdfs:Class and rdfs:Property, but they aren't required.
The base URI will be owned by ASHRAE with a resolvable URI someplace in *https://data.ashrae.org/bacnet
<https://data.ashrae.org/bacnet>* but that will be up to the Data
Modeling Working Group (DM-WG <https://bacnet.org/working-groups/dm-wg/>)
to decide. Because ASHRAE has not been in the publishing business outside
of PDF documents, the Manager of Standards has agreed that the SSPC
<https://bacnet.org/about-bacnet-committee/> would provide an acceptable
level of oversight. I've been using *https://data.ashrae.org/bacnet/2020/bacnet.ttl
<https://data.ashrae.org/bacnet/2020/bacnet.ttl>* in my presentations
because that's the latest version, ANSI uses the ASHRAE numbering, the ISO
version is ISO 16484-6:2020.
A cross-reference with things like bacnet:degrees-fahrenheit
skos:exactMatch https://qudt.org/vocab/unit/DEG_F would be acceptable.
I'm guessing that this xref would be maintained by the DM-WG and live as a
separate document because it's not BACnet as such. There are a fair number
of "units" like "currency1" that aren't going to have a mapping, and some
like "european-brewing-convention" will take some work to resolve (it's a
color! 😮 ).
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#597 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AATQRWK7YUUZV3EAQO35P43WHSBARANCNFSM6AAAAAARTQ2B7Q>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
Jack
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Hi all, I just found that MBTU (million BTU) is missing in the QUDT unit vocabulary. MBTU is a common term as well as BACnet also has mega-BTUs (148) as a unit. Is it something QUDT would consider to include? If so, I can create a PR, though I'd like to also know QUDT's preference on MBTU vs MegaBTU (or even MMBTU?).
Thanks!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: