SLAP2 and the data-source vocabulary

[Gregory MANTELET]

Dear Markus, Semantics and DAL members,

I do not feel competent regarding this question, but I completely understand
the need for such vocabulary, especially in the context of SLAP(2).

As Markus said, there is currently no existing SLAP1 service, hence the 
amazing
possibility to change the vocabulary introduced in v1 into a much better 
one in
v2. Even not being an astronomer, I agree that the distinction between
"observational/astrophysical" and "observational/laboratory" is not clear.

Has anybody in the Semantics WG or anyone having observational or 
theoretical
data (whatever kind they are) an opinion?

SLAP2 will be very soon a Proposed Recommendation. It would be really 
great to
have its vocabulary ready before it becomes a REC.

Thank you for your help,
Grégory M.


Le 27/08/2026 à 15:34, Markus Demleitner via dal a écrit :
> 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