You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, there exist in OM several subclasses of scale that are defined as oneOf a single scale instance (singleton classes). Further, there exists the class Temperature_scale, which is defined as oneOf some temperature scale instances and thous IRI doesn't fit to the naming convention. I don't see the need for the singleton classes (class definitions could simply use 'has unit' value <the scale instance> instead) and the oneOf definitions violate some OWL profiles (#79).
Currently, there exist in OM several subclasses of scale that are defined as oneOf a single scale instance (singleton classes). Further, there exists the class Temperature_scale, which is defined as oneOf some temperature scale instances and thous IRI doesn't fit to the naming convention. I don't see the need for the singleton classes (class definitions could simply use
'has unit' value <the scale instance>
instead) and the oneOf definitions violate some OWL profiles (#79).I propose to remove
and to state for all scale instances
rdf:type om:ThermodynamicTemperatureScale
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: