seaman at noao.edu
Wed Sep 12 09:37:31 PDT 2007
On Sep 12, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> I was about to write that I'd rather not add on OWL as well (oh no!
> yet another semantic sub-working-group to convice), but then I
> realized that all my uses of the vocabulary would be able to simply
> ignore the ontological info, happily putting up with the
> ontological baggage as a small price to pay for having a vocabulary
> of tokens. If our original idea of "simple" translations
> (comparisons of the "equivalences" between vocabularies) has been
> utterly superceeded by modern semantic software technology (don't
> worry about the translations and let someone's fancy software do it
> for you automatically), then we can leave out my
> <voc:isEquivalentTo>'s entirely and use vanilla SKOS.
I'd like further info on the "fancy software". There is no
assumption with VOEvent that the packets are even being parsed by a
general-purpose XML engine. A packet needs to be able to stand alone
while simultaneously being able to benefit from modern semantic
techniques. We certainly can't wait on uncontrolled web services
responding as part of a workflow.
> If someone can suggest a basic RDF pattern which expresses what
> you'd like to see and what we wanted to express - a minimum of
> ontological info - then I'd be happy to produce the complete SKOS
> (draf) vocabularies.
I think this is a worthy exercise whether or not this new prototype,
in turn, ever leads to an official work product of the group. Should
be a great topic for the VOEvent BoF and/or IVOA session.
More information about the semantics