Hello,
I just have a look to the vocabulary list
(http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/TheorySemanticVocabulary)
that has been recently increased by Miguel. Thanks to fill the gap with all the
necessary tools for stellar population evolution.
I'm wondering however whether we need or not to introduce a second level of
'physical processes' (as suggested by Miguel, I guess). I understand that the
problem comes from stellar evolution and stellar population synthesis since the
real physical processes involved in such modelling are very embedded in several
shells of code. It could be difficult to classify PEGASE, GALAXEV etc. in the
'radiative transfer' or 'photoionization' boxes!
I could also anticipate that if I want to classify my own chemodynamical codes,
I will need more or less every keywords of the 'physical process' list (apart
from GR!)!!! Keeping in mind that these keywords are possible values of an UCD,
I would describe my chemodyn code as 'gravitational dynamics + hydrodynamics' at
the minimum, but how to describe star formation recipes, feedback, stellar
population evolution etc. which form the 'chemo' part of the code ?
Anyway, in my opinion, 'stellar evolution', 'stellar population synthesis', but also 'stellar structure' and so on (still many gaps to be filled!), should be also (or only?) listed in the 'subject'.
I suggest to include photoionization and photodissociation in 'physical process' to be able to describe e.g. cloudy,mappings, Meudon code, etc., should we keep or not the 'primary/secondary' distinction.
I would like to propose that hydrostatic is a particular case of hydrodynamics since a growing number of star/planet/exo-planet atmosphere models includes atmospheric circulation.
Cheers,
Herve