> I don't think that your proposed solution is valid. It meets the
> syntactical requirements while making a mess of any semantic
> meaning.
>
>
> well... ok, but {} in UCUM is for things whose syntax doesn't make proper
> sense
>From UCUM:
"Annotations do not contribute to the semantics of the unit but are
meaningless by definition. Therefore, any fully conformant parser
must discard all annotations. Parsers of limited conformace should
not value annotations in comparison of unit"
so If I say that the unit really is g/m^2.7, but because of
UCUM limitations I say the unit is g/m{^2.7}, I'm actually
now making a false claim. (And only secret knowledge, along
with a non-conformant parser, will allow it to be made right
again).
As I said, the proper way to do this is to open a ticket.
There's a related one:
http://www.unitsofmeasure.org/ticket/51
But i don't think that this is expressed the way we would
want to express this one, which would be somewhere
along the lines of
* ucum is normatively used by HL7 v3 and others
for representing units
* a community are using the unit x (can't recall the original)
* in the health record, we need to record these units
* so how are we supposed to do this?
* UCUMs scope is "intended to include all units of measures
being contemporarily used in international science, engineering,
and business", and these units clearly comply with this scope
* a harmless way to extend the syntax to support this notion
would be to use "," a la european usage
Grahame
