New issue?: vocabulary maintenance [vocabset-5]
Andrea Preite Martinez
andrea.preitemartinez at iasf-roma.inaf.it
Thu Feb 14 08:23:59 PST 2008
Quoting "Frederic V. Hessman" <Hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE>:
> UCD is widely used in the VO and represents the most important current
> vocabulary to which many other vocabularies are going to want to link.
> For this reason alone, there MUST be a SKOS version.
> However, Norman points out correctly, that this version must be
> maintained, and the only real option is that the UCD working group do
> it. I can't possibly see any problem with this, once our proposal is
> accepted, but this means that the UCD example in the document does
> represent an emphatic suggestion to the UCD working group that they
> take over this process. They can then decide whether to do things
> like add attributes to cover the syntax codes and so be able to
> transfer the normative version of the vocabulary to SKOS (a logical
> thing to do, but....).
I agree. As chairman of the UCD-sci group, in charge of the
maintenance of the UCD list, I think that this group can take the
charge of maintaining both the unformatted plain list AND the
skosified one (especially if the first formatting is a kind gift!!).
From the formal pov, the above group (sub-group of our WG) has
been charged of the maintenance of the ucd-list by an official
IVOA Rec document.
We then need to explicitly state in our draft
that this sub-group will be in charge also of the skos version.
Btw, I think that the adoption of the draft and the introduction of
different vocabularies will reduce the need to add new ucd-words.
In my experience most of the requests of change are dealing with
tagging non-quantities (concepts, objects,...), so that the maintenance
of this vocabulary won't be a full time job!!
> We cannot let the
> IVOAT issues stop the basic proposal.
> Obviously, A&A should be ultimately maintained by A&A, AOIM by the
> informal outreach group, UCD by the UCD working group, and the
> document should make this very clear. We are simply "donating" the
> first versions in an attempt to boot-strap the process.
there is no such A&A group, but a number of editors that are not even
able to agree on a same list (see my TN). What we call the A&A vocabulary
is just an omogenization of the "astronomy and astrophysics" lists
that one can find in the instruction for authors of the various jurnals.
As a consequence, we probably better complete the work and charge the
same UCD group (or the whole WG) of the maintenance, once every decade (!!),
of the skos version of this vocabulary.
> We should be able to get IAU-93 into a form which represents ALL of
> the Shobrook&Shobrook content, in which case the vocabulary is - by
> definition - normative and finished. Should we find some minor
> errors, I'm sure we can find someone to make sure it's corrected, well-
> documented, and put back into the IVOA's (still unknown!!!) vocabulary
I perfectly agree.
>> * Thinking specifically of the IVOA-T, Rick will lead a process
>> which will develop that IVOA-T, with the expectation that it'll
>> produce some citable document before this Vocabularies document is
>> finished, but not be fully finished then. Despite that process
>> continuing after the Vocabularies document is completed, I
>> suggest that we include a snapshot of that vocabulary (call it a
>> snapshot, a beta, or an early release) as part of the Vocabualries
>> document, in _whatever_ state it's at at PR time.
> No problem.
I think the issue on maintenance is closed.
Coming to the draft, I think we are now too cautious in setting the version
to .04, as we were too optimistics calling the very first version 1.0 !!!
It is time to officially present to the WG the Vocabularies document as
Do you agree? If so, I'll send an edited v1.0 to the doc repository.
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. :+39.3220.127.116.113
More information about the semantics