On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:08 PM, Tony Linde wrote:
> Okay we seem to have equally good arguments from both sides of the
> fence:
>
> a. develop vocab using SKOS and leave the ontology unless someone
> else wants to do that in parallel, or
>
> b. develop vocab using OWL and derive SKOS version.
While I'm pleased with the traction this conversation is getting, I don't actually think we have coherent arguments yet for either side of the fence. Robert Frost says:
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,"
But his neighbor (in "Mending Wall") says:
"Good fences make good neighbors"
Google this and you'll see 1,120,000 hits, most relying on Frost's quote to assert things like:
"Well-defined borders help prevent ethnic tension."
But the poet, of course, meant exactly the opposite:
"'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it Where there are cows? But here there are no cows. Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offence. Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him, But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather He said it for himself."
Alan Weisman's excellent book, "The World Without Us", gives a sense for exactly how long all those walls would last without continual mending: Not long.
> It seems that more people, of those who are knowledgeable and care,
> prefer the SKOS approach.
Is this really an issue to take a poll on? For astronomical purposes, consensus should be based on astronomical use cases. Which of SKOS, OWL, something else (e.g., UCDs, SV as in the current draft, etc.) - or of natural language, the "none of the above" option - is best for VO purposes?
Is there even some reason to believe that all VO purposes (a pretty broad expanse of human intent) map onto the same semantic paradigm? Since much of the motivation for SV as we know it came from VOEvent, which of these options is best for the narrower VOEvent use cases?
> Can some of those ‘knowledgeable’ people get together this week and
> really thrash out the options – maybe each person who favours one
> side has to argue for the other side.
How about we all argue for the same side - for the efficient realization of useful astronomical goals? Do we even care about the "best" solution? Aren't we really engaged in an exercise of "satisficing" (http://utilitarianism.com/satisfice.htm)?
> Otherwise, about all I can suggest is that we leave the line open
> to arguments for the rest of this week and then call for a vote
> next week – unless some miracle occurs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
> uk_news/england/london/7010409.stm) and consensus breaks out.
What possibly would be the advantage of calling for a vote in the absence of consensus? I don't know what passes for a miracle in the rest of the VO, but this really doesn't seem that intractable an issue compared to some others on which VOEvent has reached consensus.
I'm also a bit perplexed what exactly would be voted upon. As we've been reminded, RDF, SKOS, OWL are already perfectly respectable standards. What precisely is keeping one VO project or another from using ontologies? On the other hand, a standard IVOA vocabulary list, for instance, would be a data product held in common that requires sign off from the hierarchy. An assertion that "we don't need no stinkin' vocabulary" does not imply "we need to pick between SKOS and OWL".
A few questions:
5a) How do semantic technologies aid in the efficient and reliable characterization of the phenomenon? (http:// oaei.ontologymatching.org/2007)
5b) What strategy is best used by the several subscribers to work together compiling follow-up observations for the common good? (http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Nash_Equilibrium)