Rick,
On 2005 Jun 13 , at 15.25, Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman wrote:
> <event ucd="em.opt" concept="event.burst"/>
>
> and loose the symantic flexibility of being able to form things like
>
> <event description="em.opt;event.burst"/>
>
> (where the fact that the burst happened in the optical is explicit,
> unlike the previous example).
For what it's worth, I think the second makes a lot more sense (though it would be "event.burst;em.opt", since the event in question IsA 'event.burst' rather than IsA 'em.opt').
Incidentally, this also provides quite a good example of the utility of namespaces. The semi-deprecation of namespaces seems to me to push folk toward the non-interoperable workaround illustrated by the first of Rick's two alternatives. Against that, it could be argued that the proposed 'event.' hierarchy is doing some of the work of a namespace by gathering all the event-related terms together, but that this `namespace' is blessed by being standardised.
All the best,
Norman
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Norman Gray : Physics & Astronomy, Glasgow University, UK http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/ : www.starlink.ac.ukReceived on 2005-06-15Z19:31:15