Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Approve change to order of unit definitions #293

Open
timbrisc opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Approve change to order of unit definitions #293

timbrisc opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
review To be reviewed by the advisors

Comments

@timbrisc
Copy link
Member

Related to issue 289, the order of definitions should be applied in ucum-essence.xml as identified by NLM's LHC group.

Changes in the order of the unit definitions

UCUM definitions build on the base units. For example, the code N for newton is built from kg.m/s2, which means that the units for g (gram - with the prefix k indicating a kilogram), m (meter), and s (second) must all be defined before the newton unit can be defined.

The ucum-essence.xml file is therefore processed sequentially, so that units can be built on previous definitions. Every once in a while the unit definitions in the ucum-essence.xml don't follow this convention, with the definition of one unit being based on another unit whose definition has not yet been read. See the list below for these instances. Comments have been inserted in the ucum-essence.xml file to document the moves.

The order of definitions for gon and deg were switched. gon was defined immediately before deg but gon is built on deg (deg.(0.9)).
The definition of eV was moved from a point preceding [e] to a point following [e]. eV is defined by [e] ([e].V).
The definition of [lbf_av] was moved from a point preceding [lb_av] to a point following [lb_av]. [lbf_av] is defined by [lb_av] ([lb_av]/16).

@timbrisc timbrisc added the review To be reviewed by the advisors label Jan 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
review To be reviewed by the advisors
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant