> (over here,
> of course, a (standard) English accent confers automatic
> credibility :).
So my Aussie accent is the reason everyone ignores me ...
... no, I didn't think so!
T.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics-at-eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics-at-eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Thomas
> Sent: 19 September 2007 18:43
> To: semantics-at-ivoa.net
> Subject: 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 - not supported so many terms missing or out-of-date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
>
Received on 2007-09-19Z21:02:02