Yo, Bri,
> I knew as I was writting my email that you would respond and
> be positioned at the other side of the fence.
I thought we were on the same side of the fence. You said, "better yet, just drop any definition at all and save the argument for a rainy day".
> Let me ask this simple question : if the definition of astronomy
> concepts (or the concepts of any field) are in general impossible
> as you seem to indicate, then how do any text books get written?
Not impossible. Expensive. Like I said, it took the OED 71 years, at which point they started all over again.
Also, textbooks are written by individual members of the community, who are free to assert any definition they like. The IVOA must be responsive to the IAU (through commission 5).
> How does one write a dictionary? I note that these things exist
I highly recommend "The Meaning of Everything" and "The Professor and the Madman" by Simon Winchester.
> and are generally accepted without the public rushing in on the
> offending author(s) with Frankenstein rakes and burning torches.
Please advise, would the appended picture be considered a "Frankenstein rake"?
> We are not looking for "complete" definitions, but rather, simple,
> workaday ones which will serve the purpose of general identification
> of a subject/concept.
Like I said, what is the purpose of this exercise? What does "general identification" mean? Clarify the problem and its solution will be easier to discern. Presumably the use cases for VOEvent are distinct from those for a textbook. Doesn't the definition in the former case remain in the hands of publishers and subscribers?
> I'll try a simple definition of gamma ray burst from the wikipedia:
Would referencing external sources, i.e., via a URL to wikiville, be sufficient - whatever the purpose(s)? A collection of hyperlinks is equivalent to the OED editor's compendium of usage.
> I would like to further add that if some people argue with this
> definition..
> so what?
The definition of "planet" started a near uprising at the IAU.
> They may start their own vocabulary, -or-, they may engage
> us to either fix the definition or to evolve the vocabulary.
...or they may regard the IVOA as arrogant and reject participation in virtual endeavors.
Could someone clarify whether each vocabulary is intended to have its own definitions, or rather whether all synonyms in the greater thesauri are intended to map to a single centralized unitary definition?
Rob
--Received on 2008-02-06Z18:54:08