my vote

From: Rob Seaman <seaman-at-noao.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 13:35:09 -0700

> 1> we put in short definitions to the vocabulary as time allows, and
> 2> definition work will not hold up a draft

> Could we vote on whether to do this (add definitions) or not?

Happy to vote yes on #2 and to abstain on #1. Have at it.

Suggest "add definitions" is a poorly framed ballot measure (like so many in AZ :-)

> Please get away from trying to argue we don't want to create a
> traditional dictionary which has an effective domain of "everywhere".

Can't parse this sentence - certainly wasn't what I was arguing :-)

Core of most arguments from the VOEvent caucus in this WG is that we define a project of limited scope and carry it to completion in an timely manner.

GRB example on the mailing list differed from the draft's spiral galaxy example, i.e., not:

        skos:definition """A burst of gamma-rays."""@en;

Concern blossomed at the added labor apprehended. Glad to learn otherwise.

Rob Received on 2008-02-08Z21:35:29