On Jun 9, 2005, at 5:30 AM, Frederic V. Rick Hessman wrote:
> I'd like to see the use of parsed UCDs alongside what the VOEvent
> group has been discussing as VOConcept (same syntax as UCDs,
> different purpose) which would allow elements such as
>
> <Thing purpose="{list of UCDs and VOConcepts}"/>
> e.g.
> <Explanation description="event.burst em.opt"/>
>
> (dummy example for an optical burst) where you can see that the
> combination of standard UCD syntax with VOConcept added is exactly
> what one needs to extend the present functionality while keeping
> the same usage.
The last time I raised this issue (http://ivoa.net/forum/ucd/ 0504/0166.htm), the thread spiraled off into ontologies. Maybe we can try again. There appears to be a lot of friction resulting from some implicit requirement that UCDs and VOConcepts occupy the same namespace and be in thrall to the same standards process. From where I'm sitting, however, they appear to simply represent different problems with similar solutions. VOConcepts may want to borrow UCD syntax, but they don't have to therefore coexist in the same namespace.
Is there some technical reason that Rick's example can't become "con:event.burst ucd:em.opt"? Let's try to avoid getting lost in the semantic underbrush. Please tell me why we can't have separate namespaces?
I've resisted cross-posting. Please let me know if you believe this will be more productively addressed elsewhere.
Rob Seaman
NOAO
Received on 2005-06-09Z23:20:12