Hi Andrea,
A few comments on the overall structure..
On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:16:08 am Andrea Preite Martinez wrote: > Not considering the TopTopLevelConcept AstroObject, the 200 concepts > are grouped under 7 TopLevelConcepts.
#From ontology: ObjectTypes_0.95
#TopLevelConcepts:
#AstroObject
# CompoundObject
This looks like a 'grouping' concept which is always 'abstract' (never a direct instance created. Do we really want stuff like that in the Thesaurus/Vocab? I'll agree its needed in the Ontology, just not sure about in the dictionary where I'd expect all the concepts to be 'concrete'.
# EMSource
# InterStellarMedium
# StellarObject
# SubStellarObject
# SupermassiveBlackHole
# Unknown
This one is problematic..I'd expect it to not be a descendant of 'AstroObject' since there are other types of unknowns. Perhaps it should be renamed to "UnknownAstroObject", or will the namespace make this clear in all cases?
# VariableObject
Similar to "Unknown", there are other types of variable objects.
##############################
#Other TopLevelConcepts not shown in the list:
#
#AstroPortion
SImilar argument to 'CompoundObject'
#AtomicElement
#Class
Similar argument to "CompoundObject". If this is meant to be "Astronomy object class", then its not needed, as we define everything explicitly (I would hope..e.g. no field under AstroOBject called "class")
#EMSpectrumRange
#Measurement
YOu will need "Quantity" as well as "Accuracy/Error", but since these are not included now, I wont get uptight about it. :)
#Morphology
#Process
-brian Received on 2007-11-14Z19:42:53