On 29 Apr 2005, at 8:51 pm, Ed Shaya wrote:
> But we can also be keeping another eye on the longer time scale where
> we want to be able to put data in machine understandable terms so that
> applications can do the most possible on our behalf. This requires
> something a bit more sophisticated than just a simple class hierarchy
> of terms. An ontology would be more complete but probably not even an
> order of magnitude (factor 10) more than the UCD is now. In fact,
> given the requests and requirements to augment UCDs, with time, the
> UCD will probably grow to the size of an ontology anyway. So, it is
> probably wise to start doing some thinking in terms of the formal OWL
> standard now. What we do with the ontology can vary greatly.
> 1. Use it as a string identifier, exactly as UCDs are. The advantage
> is that one can read the Ontology at that point to get more context
> for the meaning of the term.
> 2. Use it as one more model builder for developing schemas. This is
> like UML but more in tune with knowledge/information structures. I
> think this is what Mathew had in mind.
> 3. Use it to test completeness and consistency of terms. This would
> not be on the fly, but rather as one adds new terms one can see
> whether it is clashing with other terms and Venn diagrams let you see
> something about completeness. This then makes it more acceptable for
> groups to be adding terms into their namespace without going to the VO
> heads or the IAU.
> 4. One can use it as the defining structure of all information being
> exchanged. Sounds daring but in fact several other related science
> fields are preparing to do just that, including space physics.
> 5. One can use it to reason out pathways to converting, pipelining,
> and analysing data. It should be possible to automatically find the
> transformation and queries needed to satisfy an arbitrary stated goal
> or request. Our group at UMD has an NASA/AISRP grant to figure out
> the basics of how this might be done using OWL.
Ummm.... maybe my googling didn't go quite as far or I'm missing something: the "ontology" I found was a "low-level" (no - that sounds too negative - let's say "very fundamental") means of describing scientific quantities - nothing particularly "astronomical" about it. If this is as far as anyone has gotten, then I vote for a mid-term temporary solution - what I've called "VOThings" - which someone else can turn into a full astronomical ontology in the future. Thus,
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 2005-05-02Z12:56:58