On Sep 28, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Andrea Preite Martinez wrote:
> Elements of data models or object types and phenomena of "events"
> are typical examples of what we might want to integrate in a
> "second generation" UCDs.
Yes, indeed. I think we can all reach agreement on such things.
> On the other hand there is an increasing need to describe other
> concepts within a semantic scheme unique and agreed upon by the
> whole community.
No, not at all. A single, unique UCD namespace will never satisfy all requirements and all users. The current UCD effort has produced a worthy product. The way to protect the investment in the current UCDs, as well as to support the development of new classes of UCDs, is to recognize just that - that "VOConcepts" and other future DM specific UCDs represent separate classes of UCDs - separate namespaces.
UCDs are not XML, but the concept of a purpose specific namespace is larger than either. We cannot possibly afford to wait for agreement from the whole community for every single UCD that is proposed. The solution is to recognize that UCDs live in multiple lists managed by multiple authorities, i.e., they live in namespaces (whether or not we call them that).
And bear in mind that as the VO matures, the community in question will become the larger astronomy and physics (and geoscience and planetary science and exobiology and...) community, not just the current cozy coffee klatch. Terminology will inevitably collide. We should allow for that now, rather than address each name collision as some ad hoc shoehorning of concepts into nomenclature that fits badly or not at all.
> We should keep in mind that we need to go any way through this
> intermediate step in order to build the ontology.
Yes and no. Yes this is the correct path to follow. No, I am skeptical that a single universe-girdling ontology will emerge at the end of the day. If the VO semantic efforts fail, it will be due to over-reaching and over-generalization. We need to define a process for building separate, project and purpose specific, ontologies (plural).
Rob Seaman
NOAO
Received on 2005-09-28Z16:42:43