Vocab AND Ontology?
seaman at noao.edu
Mon Oct 8 19:49:49 PDT 2007
> Actually, it is a real challenge to find missing important terms.
That's why it took 70 years (1857 to 1928) for the first edition of
the OED. (Read Simon Winchester's excellent "Meaning of Everything"
- or anything else he's written.) One hopes it won't take us that long.
> But, here are some more terms that I dug up, mostly newer terms or
> broad, top level terms.
I guess I want to know the intent of this exercise. Wasn't the point
to generate separate purpose specific vocabularies?
> supergalactic coordinate system
For instance, this seems unlikely to appear in many VOEvent packets.
> primary companion star
> secondary companion star
> tertiary companion star
Surely there must be a generic ontological mechanism for specifying
such derivative concepts?
> Geometric Quantities: (separate namespace?)
Indubitably separate. Just because astronomy encompasses the entire
universe, that doesn't mean we need to include all of mathematics,
physics and film theory.
Not a lot of squares (celestial, anyway) in astronomy.
(Now we'll have 37 hip messages about squareness. In fond memory of
Ted Harrison, let me be first to use today's vocabulary word,
More information about the semantics