New issue?: vocabulary maintenance
Frederic V. Hessman
Hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE
Wed Feb 6 05:06:39 PST 2008
On 6 Feb 2008, at 12:29 pm, Alasdair Gray wrote:
>>> Presuming that we'll be wanting to add mappings between these
>>> vocabularies (that being half the point of this project), this is
>>> starting to look like a lot of work. Perhaps A&A, IVOAT and AOIM
>>> would be an adequately large set to include in the standard after
>> No, I'd say we should include mappings between A&A and AIOM simply
>> to show that it can be done. Leave the rest for the question of
>> what vocabulary is going to be the best lingua franca. It's
>> tempting to use IAU-93, but there are simply too many mistakes and
>> things missing and we can't/shouldn't correct for this.
> The big problem with the IAU-93 is that there are no definitions for
> the terms. This is another reason we need to get the IVOAT, or at
> least an early version of it, ready for use. However, there will
> ultimately be the need for mappings between pairs of vocabularies as
> it may not always be possible to express these by going through a
> central vocabulary.
Strictly speaking, 99% of the "definitions" in the present IVOAT are
simply human-readable versions of the token names. The few exceptions
are mostly new entries like the atomic elements (e.g. "actinium" has
the description "actinium (atomic number 89)") or a few where the
meaning needed to be more precise or isn't commonly known (e.g.
BaileyType). Thus, one could create minimal descriptions also for
the IAU-93 thesaurus by simply de-capitalizing. I did this for the
IVOAT, but I admit it took a bit more than just running a python
script over it to get it right.
More information about the semantics