Re: Derive SV from the IAU Thesaurus : (Was: Re: SV: do we need it?

On Wednesday 19 September 2007, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> The main objection to avid adoption to date has been (at least my  
> understanding)
>         - not supported so many terms missing or out-of-date

	As  I wrote earlier, it can't be _that_ many as to make this
	a useless work. How fast does Astronomy evolve? If I 
	time-ported into the past by about 10 years, I'd think I
	could still have a conversation with an Astronomer with
	little to no problem. 

>         - explicit ontological organization (this is a boon or a bane,  
> depending upon your inclination)

	I'd see the existing broad/narrow structure as a boon, as
	other people have done the arguing as to what goes where.

>         - translations available but not descriptions (it's a thesaurus, not  
> a dictionary)

	Ah, my fault here then. I tried to scrounge a copy up before
	writting, but didn't have time..bad mistake on my part.
	There are, however, other publications which are dictionaries,
	such as the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy.

http://www.ianridpath.com/books/oxforddictionary.htm

	Which is up-to-date, however, using this work may put off
	 non-CommonWealth (or former British Empire) countries that
	are tired of English sources as being the 'definitive' ones (over here,
	of course, a (standard) English accent confers automatic 
	credibility :). Perhaps there is an alternative which is acceptable;
	I haven't looked  too hard.

	=brian