I'm not a chemist, but I believe quantitykind:AbsoluteActivity to be a dimensionless quantity, see also ISO 80000-9:2019(en)
Quantities and units — Part 9: Physical chemistry and molecular physics (item 9-18 under section 3 - terms and definitions).
I propose the following changes:
L48: qudt:hasDimensionVector qkdv:A0E0L-3I0M0H0T0D0 ; -> qudt:hasDimensionVector qkdv:A0E0L0I0M0H0T0D1 ;
L55: skos:broader quantitykind:InverseVolume -> skos:broader quantitykind:Dimensionless .
However, I am not sure if the latter entry should be skos:broader quantitykind:DimensionlessRatio . instead, can I get some guidance here? Technically, the logarithm of the absolute activity is a ratio, not the absolute activity itself.
I'd also like to ask a quick question about pull requests: Would you prefer to group several small pull requests into one, even if they are not necessarily related? For example, I noticed that some natual language descriptions of quantitykind:SurfaceActivityDensity are incomplete. That's an easy fix. Would you prefer a separate issue/pull request or to have everything combined?
I'm not a chemist, but I believe quantitykind:AbsoluteActivity to be a dimensionless quantity, see also ISO 80000-9:2019(en)
Quantities and units — Part 9: Physical chemistry and molecular physics (item 9-18 under section 3 - terms and definitions).
I propose the following changes:
L48:
qudt:hasDimensionVector qkdv:A0E0L-3I0M0H0T0D0 ;->qudt:hasDimensionVector qkdv:A0E0L0I0M0H0T0D1 ;L55:
skos:broader quantitykind:InverseVolume->skos:broader quantitykind:Dimensionless .However, I am not sure if the latter entry should be
skos:broader quantitykind:DimensionlessRatio .instead, can I get some guidance here? Technically, the logarithm of the absolute activity is a ratio, not the absolute activity itself.I'd also like to ask a quick question about pull requests: Would you prefer to group several small pull requests into one, even if they are not necessarily related? For example, I noticed that some natual language descriptions of quantitykind:SurfaceActivityDensity are incomplete. That's an easy fix. Would you prefer a separate issue/pull request or to have everything combined?