boundaries

The discussions here on VOEvent have been interesting but I feel we may be straying into the territory of the VOEvent workgroup.

While it is certainly useful for the Semantics IG to discuss in generic terms what the scope of the AstroOntology ought to be and to use the VOEvent case as an example, I think it might be more appropriate, where a group of experts and interested parties does exist, to pass specific questions of term definition to that group for resolution. Semantics IG can then concentrate on conceptual issues such as how we define ontologies, how we make them useful and extensible and where they might be used in the VObs architecture.

What do others think about the boundary between this group and the workgroups? And what is the best way to capture that boundary in the charter of the group?

Cheers,
Tony.

-- 
Tony Linde
Phone:  +44 (0)116 223 1292      Mobile: +44 (0)7753 603356
Fax:    +44 (0)116 252 3311      Email:  Tony.Linde-at-leicester.ac.uk
Skype:  callto:tonylinde (home)  callto:tonylinde2 (work)
Post:   Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Leicester
        Leicester, UK   LE1 7RH
Web:    http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~ael
            
Project Manager, EuroVO VOTech   http://eurovotech.org 
Programme Manager, AstroGrid     http://www.astrogrid.org 
Co-Director,
 Leicester e-Science Centre      http://www.e-science.le.ac.uk/