[QUANTITY] and [OBSERVATION] data models: UCDs with DMs
mchill at dial.pipex.com
Mon May 10 06:31:01 PDT 2004
Francois Bonnarel wrote:
> < I have always maintained that the string-based UCD approach is very
> < flawed, and it the root cause of many of the issues in trying to transition
> < from UCD1 to 1+/2. I am very much a believer that we should just keep
> < UCD1 as is, and immediately start work on UCD3. Skip the "intermediate"
> < steps which aren't going to be very productive as the gap between what
> < is really needed (a flexible, multi-node interconnected set of semantics)
> < and what is currently implemented (somewhat inflexible 2-level hierarchy based
> < on strings) is too wide. An incremental approach will likely be a failure here.
> < We need to admit the failures of the present approach and move on.
> How can something like UCD1 used in various softwares and
> performing real work be considered as a failure? (And there was a need
> for some simplification- error/fixing - generalization of that --> UCD1+).
> Except if we put data model theory over all. Not that I do not recognize
> that the UCD3/ontology approach has to be performed. I described
> another conception of the relationship between Data model work and
> actual interoperability in my mail to G Lemson yesterday.
Failure might be too strong a word, but UCD1 is not sufficient to
describe data fully enough for complete interoperability. I agree with
Brian about what we need eventually, but I think the effort going into
UCD1+/2 is helping to define these things and how they might work. As
long as we realise they are only steps along the way.
In fact, would combining UCD1++/2+ with structure from the data models
be sufficient to describe VO data?
07901 55 24 66
More information about the dm