[This discussion probably should be on the ucd or semantics list rather than
voevent, which is an application.]
The use-case identified in Madrid, which prompted the need for standard object type names was searching by object type in SSA. We want to be able to do things like query for spectra where targetclass=QSO. I was expecting to see a simple list of names like "star", "galaxy", "PN", "QSO", "AGN", "GRB", etc., which is what I think users would like to search for, but what we have instead are more UCD-like names such as "process.variation.burst;em.gamma" which I guess indicates a GRB.
I can see where it could be useful to specify more precisely what type of object we have as the UCD approach suggested permits, but it would also be useful to standardize the actual, simple acronyms commonly used by astronomers. Perhaps what we need are two lists, one for precise characterisation of physical object types, another defining the common, standard acronym associated with such object types. This could be done by merely defining a standard list of acronyms for object types, and assigning one to each of the object type UCDs, where appropriate. - Doug
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Roy Williams wrote:
> Please find attached a white paper from Andrea Preite-Martinez, the chairman
> of the IVOA Semantics working group, which is a first attempt to build a
> standard vocabulary for astronomical phenomena and for astronomical objects.
> I would like to have a brief discussion of this at the VOEvent meeting next
> week, and/or receive comments by email from those who cannot attend the
> meeting. Rick Hessman has already worked on exactly this topic.
>
> I would like to compile a "group response feedback" on this paper for Andrea
> and the Semantics WG.
>
> Roy Williams
>
> California Institute of Technology
> 626 395 3670
>
>
Received on 2005-12-01Z06:05:46