On 6 Feb 2008, at 12:29 pm, Alasdair Gray wrote:
>>> Presuming that we'll be wanting to add mappings between these >>> vocabularies (that being half the point of this project), this is >>> starting to look like a lot of work. Perhaps A&A, IVOAT and AOIM >>> would be an adequately large set to include in the standard after >>> all. >>> >> No, I'd say we should include mappings between A&A and AIOM simply >> to show that it can be done. Leave the rest for the question of >> what vocabulary is going to be the best lingua franca. It's >> tempting to use IAU-93, but there are simply too many mistakes and >> things missing and we can't/shouldn't correct for this.
Strictly speaking, 99% of the "definitions" in the present IVOAT are simply human-readable versions of the token names. The few exceptions are mostly new entries like the atomic elements (e.g. "actinium" has the description "actinium (atomic number 89)") or a few where the meaning needed to be more precise or isn't commonly known (e.g. BaileyType). Thus, one could create minimal descriptions also for the IAU-93 thesaurus by simply de-capitalizing. I did this for the IVOAT, but I admit it took a bit more than just running a python script over it to get it right.
Rick Received on 2008-02-06Z14:06:56