Vocab AND Ontology?
thomas at astro.umd.edu
Thu Oct 4 07:52:23 PDT 2007
First off, great work!
On Thursday 04 October 2007, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> Yes, the IAU thesaurus is larger than we'd prefer and contains lots
> of historical baggage (no, we don't need a token for Ramsden
> eyepieces), but it's there, is official, was "easily" extended to
> include more modern concepts (e.g. Type Ia supernovae weren't quite
> as important in the 80's and so were left out!) and could just as
> easily be extended to cover the other things needed by, e.g., VOEvent.
My main, and I hope salient, comments other than praise concern
the use of namespaces in the document. First, I'd change
to something more VO/IAU-ish, eg.
Also, any of the new terms which have been introduced should belong
to a different 'namespace' from the IAU Thesaurus per-se. While I will
not quibble about the need for additional terms, I do think its not
desirable to mix in stuff which is not properly part of the official
namespace of the Thesaurus. I doubt we are the official body for
declaring a new version of this document.
So, I see 2 different ways to proceed here, either:
1. Rename the work you have done to uniform, new namespace,
e.g. "VO Standard Vocabulary".
2. Make a document which imports all of the various bits which will
comprise the standard vocabulary, (e.g. VO SV is the sum of a variety of
namespaces, e.g. IAU Thesaurus + VOEvent terms + etc.)
I vastly prefer the later approach, and I know how I would do this in
OWL, but unsure of the proper mechanism for SKOS (at the very least
you can change all of the rdf:resource tags on relevant, new, triplets).
> I'm sure we could agree on a better text format to conform to
> standard ontology usage, but everything should be self-explanatory.
More information about the semantics