Another thought....
On 26 Apr 2005, at 4:20 pm, Rob Seaman wrote:
> The challenge here is not only that the list will never be complete,
> it is that we should be encouraging researchers to actively augment
> and improve the list. A workable classification scheme is often the
> first step in organizing a research program. But the result of a
> research program is often to overturn the original classification
> scheme. We don't want to provide a mechanism that is only useful for
> describing objects far removed from the cutting edge.
The "cutting edge" will always be such that one won't have a useful classification scheme other than unusual combinations of the more general bits and pieces. That's why the UCD has to be hierarchical (to emphasize/extract general properties even when given specifics) and easily combined. Let's see.....
cosmology.dark_energy <== cosmology.background;em.microwave cosmology.background.polarization;em.microwave stars.supernova.Type_Ia;process.eruption.hydrodynamic; process.eruption.thermonuclear galaxies.velocity_curve cosmology.abund ....
(Aha - already discovered a few important UCD's to add....!)
Rick
Dr. Frederic V. Hessman Hessman-at-Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE Universitaets-Sternwarte Tel. +49-551-39-5052 Geismarlandstr. 11 Fax +49-551-39-5043 37083 Goettingen http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~hessman ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
http://monet.uni-goettingen.de ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------Received on 2005-04-26Z14:56:02