The product-type vocabulary

[BONNAREL FRANCOIS]

Dear all,
Le 15/12/2021 à 09:03, Markus Demleitner a écrit :
> Dear Semantics, Dear DAL,
>
> The current Datalink WD
> (http://ivoa.net/documents/DataLink/20211115/index.html) needs a
> vocabulary of product types (images, spectra,...), mainly to satisfy
> the "figure out a client suitable as a SAMP target" use case.
>
> While there are other use cases (of course, dataproduct_type in
> obscore, but perspectively also searching by the sort of data
> products coming out of a service in the Registry), because of the
> Datalink WD review I'd say it's up to DAL to bring this vocabulary
> into shape.

There are two good reasons to go in this direction at least. We have 
obviously new use cases where we may need more accurate (narrower) terms.

- In the context of ObsCore we could always manage that with 
dataproduct_subtype (with the interoperability drawback that it is not 
supposed to contain standard terms in general) but in the context of the 
DataLink "content_qualifier" field (see DataLink 1.1 WD) we would not 
have this possibility. SO we have to extend the list of terms beyond the 
current ObsCore list.

- Many of the new terms may show relationships with other terms which 
are not simply hierarchical. A good example is the new "dynamic 
spectrum" term which is a TimeSeries and also a spectrum. Apparently 
SKOS allows to manage such relationships.

I have written a long email to propose a way to extend this SKOS 
vocabulary in a consistent way in the future on the semantics list a 
couple of minutes ago. 
(http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/2022-January/002948.html)

As a first step I support Markus' proposal.

Cheers

François


>
> I've published a draft of this at
> <http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/product-type>, which basically reflects the
> word list used by obscore, plus #dynamic-spectrum at the request of
> the SSIG.
>
> I had talked about that re-design at the last Interop,
> <https://wiki.ivoa.net/internal/IVOA/InterOpNov2021Sem/product-type.pdf>
> -- if you've not been there, briefly skimming the notes might help
> understanding where this is going.
>
> By Vocabularies rules, as long as the vocabulary is preliminary,
> terms can be easily added and removed (though in this case I'd say we
> shouldn't remove anything coming from obscore, although I have to say
> I'd rather not have #measurements in its current shape).  If you have
> proposals in either direction, feel free to bring them forward here.
>
> Thanks,
>
>            Markus