[VEP-003] datalink/core#sibling: Ready for TCG

[Laurent MICHEL]

Dear all,

I agree we need a very generic term to say that this dataset is derievd 
from that one.
Taking the place of a lambda-user, I'm pretty sure that neither #sibling 
nor #crosseddataset make sense.

     #sibling is too vague
     #cross... reminds some crossmatch process

In contrast, #see-also is something everyone can understand.
The meaning of the "also" suffix can be resolved by a subtype in 
content_type

So my vote goes for #see-also

Laurent


Le 14/02/2020 à 10:24, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
> Dear François,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 06:53:15PM +0100, François Bonnarel wrote:
>> Le 12/02/2020 à 14:15, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
>>> In December, we discussed about VEP-003
>>> (https://volute.g-vo.org/svn/trunk/projects/semantics/veps/VEP-003.txt),
>>> which would add a term #sibling to the datalink vocabulary.
>>>
>>> Discussion sort of ended with
>>> http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dal/2020-January/008257.html -- and
>>> now I'm not sure whether there are still doubts if #sibling should go
>>> ahead.  Are there?
>> Yes I told  you I don't think this covers all the cases where wou want to
>> associate a dataset to a source in a catalog.
>> Just because as you say below sibling means they have the same origin.
>> What we had in mind is something where they are simply cross-corelated.
>>
>> Is CrossedDataSet something we could consider a head in branch containing
>> sibling, contains, followup ?
> 
> Well, "there are additional concepts we could introduce" isn't an
> argument against #sibling, which is what we need to make up our mind
> about here.  Further terms, including more general ones, of course
> can (and should) go in in separate VEPs when use cases for them come
> up.
> 
> Or do you make the point that the concept "data also derived from
> #this's #progenitor" isn't really useful in practice because it's
> too specific, too unspecific, or irrelevant to users?
> 
> You see, I somehow have a gut feeling that what we really mean is
> "Astronomers who looked at this table row also looked at this and
> that other dataset" rather than "this stuff was made from the same
> source material", which perhaps is a concept few scientists care
> about.
> 
> An alternative concept closer to the Amazon use case could perhaps
> become a term #see-also.
> 
> Anyone out there who has strong preferences for either #sibling or
> #see-also?  Perhaps even arguments?  Or an idea on how to decide the
> matter in a non-gut-feeling way?  Of course, #see-also could still
> become a parent of #sibling later when we pass #sibling now.
> 
> So... François, for the very concrete case of the gaia epoch
> photometry and the RP/BP spectra -- and of course similar
> relationships --, would you object to #sibling and the description
> from VEP-003?
> 
> Also: Would anyone else?
> 
> If not, I think despite my musings on #see-also I'd push VEP-003 to
> the TCG.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>            Markus
> 

-- 
---- Laurent MICHEL              Tel  (33 0) 3 68 85 24 37
      Observatoire de Strasbourg  Fax  (33 0) 3 68 85 24 32
      11 Rue de l'Universite      Mail laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr
      67000 Strasbourg (France)   Web  http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~michel
---