defining stuff (was Re: On the impossibility ...)
seaman at noao.edu
Thu Feb 7 08:29:33 PST 2008
Ed Shaya wrote:
> It was a poor choice to use GRBs as an example
An example is either typical or atypical. Both provide hooks for
exploring the solution space, as your further discussion nicely
demonstrates. VO facilities may aim for the typical 90%, but the
atypical 10% must ultimately be accommodated.
On the other hand, GRB's are the bread & butter of transient astronomy
currently (and one anticipates, for quite some time into the future).
I would argue that any definition of same should be driven by our
functional needs - not by an annual review style consensus, but by the
information practitioners (perhaps outside the domain of astronomy)
need to move astronomy forward to the next level of comprehension.
> I also would not underestimate the number of times a term has
> multiple meanings.
> That is unacceptable for us.
Why - and by "us", to what use case(s) are you referring - and what
are "we" (in this case, the architecture addressing all supported use
cases) going to do about it?
More information about the semantics