Format of tokens
seaman at noao.edu
Wed Nov 14 05:34:38 PST 2007
> I would have thought that a "TopConcept" is one which is at the top
> of a connection-hierarchy
...unless we just want to declare all entries to be narrower than
"AstroThingy". Surely, beyond that it's turtles all the way up.
> If there is a concept "gummi bears" but no "BT candy" then the
> authors of the vocabulary have obviously left "candy" out for some
> reason, making "gummi bears" pretty top-level
Do we have a sense for whether there are any (significant) missing ur-
concepts we should introduce to complete the hierarchy?
Let me just say here that a few of us from NVO had a very cordial
meeting last week with the CBAT (literally the entire IAU Bureau). I
mention this because pertinent to this discussion, the question came
up of what to call the "Minor Planet Center" in an era sans "Minor
Planets". I won't say I have an answer for you - but clearly VO
personnel weren't the first to inquire...
Just to clarify my own understanding of the activity we're engaged
in, a concept "MPC" would be neither NT or BT the concept of "Minor
Planet", right? (Unless, I suppose, Massachusetts were an asteroid
rather than a commonwealth.)
> Dropping the TopConcept links to entries with no NT's is trivial -
> is this the general consensus?
If I understand the suggestion, I concur. I wouldn't be surprised to
find my understanding still to be devoid of "substance", however.
> [AG] In principle I agree that top level concepts should not have a
> broader term. However, we are trying to accurately model the IAU 1993
> thesaurus not correct it. Thus, the top level concepts should be those
> that appear in the top level in their hierarchy list, not what we feel
> should be a top level concept. We can correct this for the IVOAT :)
Not just accurately model, but coherently model. If the original has
errors at the level of "mappings", not just concepts, we should
consider correcting it. What this means to me would be for this WG
to form a consensus of the best new-tech representation of the 90's
thesaurus (where "best" is understood in a multi-parametric way), and
then to present this to the original authors and the broader Comm. 5
More information about the semantics