Andrea Preite Martinez
andrea.preitemartinez at iasf-roma.inaf.it
Fri Mar 2 06:10:49 PST 2007
> Should I continue on in providing definitional statements of the
> AstroObjects? I didn't get any comments on the ones so far, and I
> don't know what that means;
thank you for your contribution.
The reason why we didn't react immediately is that we are presently
inserting measurements in the ontology.
As I said already (I think!) we are building the ontology having in
mind, possibly for each astronomical object, to describe its
properties according to different points of view. The first we call it
morphology, but also includes a description of components and/or
parts. The second point of view is focused on physical processes,
acting on the object or generating its observational properties.
The last (for the moment!) point of view emphasizes measurements and
Each new definition needs to be "projected" along these points of
view, which means that it has to be coherent, if possible, with the
existing corpus of properties for that particular "view". If this is
not the case, the introduction of new properties (in the sense of
description logic) has to be carefully evaluated in terms of overall
cost-to-benefits for future utilizations.
Therefore, any new definition ? or multiple definition of the same
object, in the sense explained above - is not only welcome but
necessary, because it will help us in completing / improving the
ontology by extracting / distilling the needed information.
Integrating new conditions into the ontology is then a question of
balance of expressiveness against complexity, and performances in
Andrea Preite Martinez andrea.preitemartinez at iasf-roma.inaf.it
Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Tel.CDS :+33.3.90242452
I-00133 Roma Cell.1 :+39.3126.96.36.1993
More information about the semantics