Hi Frederic,
First off, great work!
On Thursday 04 October 2007, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> Yes, the IAU thesaurus is larger than we'd prefer and contains lots
> of historical baggage (no, we don't need a token for Ramsden
> eyepieces), but it's there, is official, was "easily" extended to
> include more modern concepts (e.g. Type Ia supernovae weren't quite
> as important in the 80's and so were left out!) and could just as
> easily be extended to cover the other things needed by, e.g., VOEvent.
>
My main, and I hope salient, comments other than praise concern the use of namespaces in the document. First, I'd change
http://www.Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE/~hessman/rdf/IAU#
to something more VO/IAU-ish, eg.
http://ivoa.net/rdf/IAUThesaurus#
Also, any of the new terms which have been introduced should belong to a different 'namespace' from the IAU Thesaurus per-se. While I will not quibble about the need for additional terms, I do think its not desirable to mix in stuff which is not properly part of the official namespace of the Thesaurus. I doubt we are the official body for declaring a new version of this document. So, I see 2 different ways to proceed here, either: 1. Rename the work you have done to uniform, new namespace, e.g. "VO Standard Vocabulary". =or= 2. Make a document which imports all of the various bits which will comprise the standard vocabulary, (e.g. VO SV is the sum of a variety of namespaces, e.g. IAU Thesaurus + VOEvent terms + etc.) I vastly prefer the later approach, and I know how I would do this in OWL, but unsure of the proper mechanism for SKOS (at the very least you can change all of the rdf:resource tags on relevant, new, triplets).
> I'm sure we could agree on a better text format to conform to
> standard ontology usage, but everything should be self-explanatory.
=brian Received on 2007-10-04Z17:51:15