Should Measure properties be functional?
Closed this issue · 3 comments
As I understand it, the Measure gives us a way to pair a unit (hasDimension) and a number of those units (hasNumericalValue).
Working with Protege, I was surprised to see that nothing seems to enforce Measure having only one dimension and one numerical value. Is this an oversight, or was this a deliberate design decision?
I am not sure whether hasDimension and hasNumericalValue should be owl:FunctionalProperty's or whether Measure should be be restricted to have exactly 1 dimension and one numerical value. But if some such restriction is not made, doesn't OM admit incoherent models?
To be precisely: a Measure has the properties hasUnit and hasNumericalValue.
Thanx for the issue you raised. It's an interesting issue, and I have to think about it.
Originally it was my main objective that OM facilitates functionality rather than restricting. Or, in other words, the first priority was facilitating. Nevertheless, this is an interesting issue. Perhaps also other properties should be defined (or restricted) as functional properties.
In the case of these properties (hasUnit and hasNumericalValue) they could be defined as functional properties.
Let me sleep about it. I think they should be defined as functional properties. I'll come back to this soon, this week is my aim.
Yes, I think we should do it. My intention is to define these two properties as functional properties tomorrow, depending on my schedule. I'll keep you updated.
I have just uploaded a new version of OM, in which I have defined hasNumericalValue and hasUnit as functional properties. Thanx for the issue!