This is why I prefer separate threads on a single mailing list to
attempts to segregate discussions up front into conceptually
different mailing lists. There appear to be at least four different
places to talk about UCDs/Ontologies. Either the members of those
mailing lists overlap strongly - or they don't. In the former case,
why have separate lists? In the latter case, some folks miss large
parts of the conversation. In either case, administrivia messages
proliferate trying to keep everybody in line. Oh, well...shall we
take the more conceptual discussions over to ucd-tech?
On Jun 2, 2005, at 6:24 AM, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote:
> we (eg: IVOA project and people) urgently need a stabilized version
> of the UCD vocabulary.
Fine. (Although one might read discussion to date as an expression of a sense that this goal will not be trivial.) If the ucd-sci board is to focus exclusively on generating vocabulary, what we need is a structured discussion, not a free-for-all. Is there a specific action item on the table? "Provide vocabulary" ain't gonna cut it.
> The starting point is the list of words already available as an
> IVOA-WD.
Reminder where that is?
> we decided to postpone the discussion on <UCDs and the VOEvent
Define "postpone". The VOEvent WG certainly intends that its prototypes be fast-tracked.
> I remind you that in the actual version of UCDs we do have
> <objects>: in the sense that we do (we can) distinguish between the
> temperature of a star (its effective temperature) and that of a
> detector or instrument. We do distinguish between the name/
> identifier of an astronomical object and that of a telescope,
> instrument, or even a fov. In all these cases we use ucd-words
> describing <objects> as <qualifiers>.
It would be useful to those of us now joining the UCD conversation from outside to see such examples expressed in in their full and gory detail.
> I totally agree with Rick's final statement on ontologies: we need
> standards NOW, not in 30-40 man-years time!
Rather, we need prototype solutions now. A standard itself cannot be reached via a short-cut. The ontologies will inevitably form the long term standards. UCDs and other semantic constructs will inevitably ultimately flow from the formalized ontologies. Astronomy is the oldest of the sciences - we have all the time in the world for these academic pursuits. In the mean time, pilot projects will produce prototype solutions that will serve the community's needs for a season before being supplanted by better technology layered on our always evolving understanding of the issues.
Rob Seaman
NOAO
Received on 2005-06-02Z17:19:16