Doug Tody wrote:
> Andrea Preite Martinez wrote:
>> - YES, we can go on discussing/commenting/editing it, with the
>> ultimate goal
>> to define an IVOA SV standard.
>
> We should continue this. The most important thing at this point
> is content, not format. Experimentation re SKOS/OWL/RDF etc. can
> proceed in parallel and should be prototyped. If necessary, it will
> be possible to restructure the vocabulary later for better integration
> with whatever technology proves a better match for our applications.
Fundamentally disagree, the most important thing is syntax and format. Let people build the content ad-hoc in a folksonomy style. Then formalise this later if you really have to, perhaps adopt a small sub-set officially. You can't build, from scratch, a list of words that describes everything everyone is doing at the moment, let alone in the future. It is fundamentally not possible to build a canonical and final list of "stuff" in a subject like ours, which deals with broad topics and changes on a fairly rapid time scale. Subjects that have done this face more bounded problem sets.
If you're going to go and build a framework where we can fit our own words and collaboratively create and manage a vocabulary to annotate and categorize our content then I vote YES. If what is being voted on here is going off and building a big list of words, I vote NO.
Al. Received on 2007-09-21Z09:14:40