RE: IAU thesaurus in RDF (an update)

The issue of individuals in a thesaurus raises all sorts of questions.

1. Which do you include/exclude?
2. What do you do about the ones that you have missed/not yet discovered?

There is also an issue about how to represent individuals in a thesaurus.

1. Are they a concept?
2. Should they only exist as part of a collection?

At the moment, I only have lots of questions about individuals and no answers and I have spent several days mulling over these issues.  

Cheers,  

Alasdair    

Alasdair J G Gray

Research Associate: Explicator Project

Computer Science, University of Glasgow

0141 330 6292    

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-semantics-at-eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics-at-eso.org] On Behalf Of Ed Shaya
Sent: 8 October 2007 15:16
To: Frederic V. Hessman; IVOA semantics
Subject: Re: IAU thesaurus in RDF (an update)  

Rick,  

Someone asked if there needs to be Individuals. This already has Sun,

Moon, Earth, Mars and others. It turns out that there are a few that

are needed because other terms are so related to them. Although one

probably could substitute #spicules skos:related #stars for #spicules

skos:related #Sun, etc. But, maybe we should have both. But it is

clear that one should have at least a few Individuals.  

Talking about individuals. There is a #velocity_of_light. Do we need

velocity_of_light_in_vacuum to distinguish from in_medium?  

infrared_radiation should have broader electromagnetic_radiation, as

ultraviolet_radiation has. Is infrared_radiation synonymous with

infrared_emission? I don't see a way for SKOS to say SameAs. How does

one say iau:stars sameas cds:stars?  

Ed               Received on 2007-10-10Z12:02:04