Dear Rick,
I think I will not vote.
I find the discussion (any discussion) among people with different ideas
very stimulating.
And sometimes also more useful than perfect agreement.
Reducing the size of the group until you can feel eventually "among us"
is not good at all in real life, certainly not in the VO.
Just to show you that you are not the only one "uneasy" with somebody
else's point of view, I'll make an example of how "uneasy" could feel an
UCD-folk like me.
Take for instance the UCD you proposed few days ago:
instr.obsty.site;weather.seeing just to express "seeing"
When I saw it I made a jump on my chair: why? In inverse order of importance:
Let's reverse the roles: you jump on the chair when you see the description
of the src.class.* words.
You are perfectly right. What is not said is that I do not use the
description
field to assign words/ucds: I use a series of words (keywords
derived from the description) that are OR-ed,
which is exactly equivalent to the loosier description you suggest.
As I already said, the ucd vocabulary is not only composed of words that are "quantities". More and more "objects" are creeping in, and I can imagine the development of two sub-lists :
a "q-list" slowly evolving (or even stabilized; after all the number of new (astro-)physical quantities per year is probably very easy to control!!)
and an "o-list" (or whatever name we decide for it!!) for "non-quantities",
both lists with the same syntax (just for simplicity and
"interoperability" (!!),
so that we can continue to build UCDs of the form:
word[q-list];word[o-list] ...
as we do today without knowing that we are actually doing it (!)
Andrea
Andrea Preite Martinez andrea-at-rm.iasf.cnr.it Istituto di Astrofisica Spaziale Tel.:+39.06.4993.4641 Area di Ricerca di Tor Vergata Fax.:+39.06.2066.0188 Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100 Cell:+39.339.381735500133 Roma