SLAP2 and the data-source vocabulary

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear Semantics, dear DAL,

You may remember the data-source vocabulary that we're currently
trying to introduce with VODataService 1.3:
<https://www.ivoa.net/rdf/data-source/>.

When last discussed in Strasbourg (rather lively), it was about
telling #abstract-model from #concrete-model.  Now, my hopes that
#observation is less tricky (for now) turn out to be unjustified.
This is because on the way to SLAP2, I would like to replace the
dataSource element in its registry extension with something using
with the vocabulary (and then probably drop it in favour of the
VODataService 1.3 dataSource, but that's a minor matter).

The SimpleDALRegExt 1.2 ("SLAP1") content model is

"observational/astrophysical", "observational/laboratory", "theoretical"

-- and I really think we can't tell the line community to disregard
the difference between the first two concepts.  Since there are
(essentially) no live SLAP1 services left, we are free to rename
them, but I think we have to keep the concepts.

In a first stab, I've created #in-situ and #laboratory concepts,
What do people think?  In particular look at the definitions.  I'm
aware that you can construct things that violate the principle that
something should be within one leaf concept only (think of robolabs
onboard of spacecraft ), but at least I can't make the definitions
such that these aren't ambiguous (for the record, I think the
definitions should be written such that robolabs count as in-situ).

Comments welcome, more welcome actually if they come early.

I'd suggest followups should go to semantics.

Thanks,

           Markus