Rick, hello.
On 2008 Feb 7, at 07:51, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> There's a very simple reason why there needs to be a SKOS-ified
> version of UCD: we desperately need to be able to link vocabulary
> words to UCD tokens. If we can't do this, then we'll need to
> replace all that UCD is and put an equivalent in a different
> vocabulary (e.g. IVOAT), which sounds like a pretty stupid thing to
> do.
Is there a use-case that should go in the document? It appears to me that UCDs already have a place -- and a special attribute in the VOTable spec, no less -- so that it's not clear to me what SKOSifying them would add. I'm not denying that this scenario exists, but it's one which I at least haven't thought of (and probably should have), and which I'm not picking up from your description here.
>> 1. Publish just the IAU-93, but with a prominent notice saying we
>> know it's out of date, and this is just an exercise (the
>> disadvantage is that this starts to look redundant, or
>> alternatively that the fact that `everyone knows it's out of date'
>> might partly undermine the standard).
>
> Even if it is much less useful than it should be, it's not "out-of-
> date", if only because it still is the international standard, much
> more than AOIM.
True -- at the very least we'd have to be careful about the language used here.
> The present IVOA-T IS a minimally updated IAU-93, but "minimally
> updated" doesn't simply mean we've added a few missing words. There
> is some concern that a discussion of the merits of publishing an
> IVOA-T will distract from the expected easy acceptance of the basic
> vocabulary proposal. On the other hand, if we tell our colleagues
> "be fruitful and let vocabularies multiply in the VO" but then say
> that the only ones available at first, A&A, AOIM, and IAU-93, aren't
> really enough to cover the basics, then they'll rightly say "why
> bother" or simply use IAU-93 after all (like Rob).
and...
>> I suggest that we include in the Vocabulary standard document the
>> three vocabularies A&A, AOIM, and either IAU-93 or IAU-93/IVOA-T,
>> depending on how we resolve this.
>>
> This is a good point: the vocabularies we discuss at more length in
> the standards document don't have to be the same ones which the IVOA
> publishes. Still, if we can produce several useful vocabularies
> (each having it's own particular use) and we're not stepping on
> anybodies semantic toes, why can't we simply produce a nice batch of
> vocabularies to start out with?
Are you, then, moving towards the position that the IVOA-T shouldn't be included in this vocabularies standard, but should be the subject of a parallel standardisation effort?
I'm not opposed to that in principle, but it slightly worries me, since I think that publication of an updated IAU-93 (=IVOA-T) would be important for the vocabularies effort, and it would be unfortunate if they were published too far apart from each other.
>> I don't know what to do with the constellation vocabulary. On the
>> one hand, it's simple; on the other, 4 is 33% more than 3....
>
> Exactly what we now have: it is a usable if limited vocabulary
> derived for didactic purposes, being MUCH simpler than all the rest
> we're taking about.
Fair enough. No objections from me. Does anyone else feel strongly about Rick's constellation vocabulary being in the document?
See also <http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/VocabulariesWorkingArea >.
> No, because this should be the long-term place for all IVOA-
> supported/mirrored vocabularies. This demands a long-term
> commitment to a simple URI not unlike http://www.ivoa.net/xml or http://www.ivoa.net/Documents
> .
I think this overlaps with the issue of versioning. I'll mail Bruno.
See you,
Norman
-- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk eurovotech.org : University of LeicesterReceived on 2008-02-10Z23:07:11