Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:41:04 -0700
Andrew said:
> Redhat has a red hat logo. You can't get much clearer than that.
> What does a
> VOEvent look like? If we want people to remember it, why not make
> make it
> simple, like redhat, etc, yet still astronomical enough to
> recognize that it may be an event?
Alternately, we could rename VOEvent "bluebowtie".
>> We shouldn't get fancy, we aren't designers here. Stick to >> something simple.
> Yes.
Simple, yes - but anybody with Freehand or Illustrator can be a graphic designer. I would certainly think that most of us regard ourselves as occupying some role in the software system design world.
> By using it we are emphasing the XML, which is just one way of
> representing
> something which (hopefully) is intrinsically more interesting than
> the semantics.
> Will we even want to stick with XML in a few years?
I suspect XML has more durability than most buzzwords of the day. Am doubtful about Schema, however.
Would not have thought semantics was a term of ill repute in the VO :–) It is precisely that the Chaco Canyon petroglyphs capture a semantically recognizable representation of a particular, and particularly spectacular and scientifically significant, celestial event that raises them out of the ordinary.
I'm not sure what the opposite of "semantic" is, but a purely empathic representation of a supernova:
http://cahaly.net/gallery2/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Star- Paintings&id=supernova
may be strangely devoid of even emotional content.
Contrast van Gogh's Starry Night, as Albert Boime did in a classic CD- ROM for the late, lamented Voyager Co. (see http://www.artchive.com/ cdrom/starry/cd_starry.html). The art historian showed that the artist had painted a specific starry night, tracing it down to a precise <WhereWhen> and significantly enhancing even the artistic experience for this observer.
(To head off the suggestion, several other astronomy projects have long since appropriated Starry Night, although the initials SN do make one think...)
Rob
