Quasar classification (in Re: WD-Ontology)

[Kjetil Kjernsmo]

On Friday 02 March 2007 15:15, Alexandre RICHARD wrote:
> Thanks for the correction. Indeed the disjoints and subsumption were
> incorrect for QSOs.

OK, good to know it wasn't me! :-)

> As for the name issue (QSO vs Quasar), it is not up to me to decide
> which is best 

OK. Perhaps it would be nice to ask leading figures in the AGN community 
about their opinions? 

> but it is not of such importance as long as it is the 
> name of a concept in the ontology since we can associate adequate
> display names to each concept and display them in place of the
> concept name.

Indeed, it isn't all that important as long as you have an rdfs:comment 
or rdfs:label property. 

BTW, there are many cases in the ontology where I think I would prefer 
rdfs:label over rdfs:comment, e.g. in the case of Quasar, whereas in 
some cases, e.g. 
  <owl:Class rdf:about="#AstroPortion">
    <rdfs:comment rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string"
    >Portion of an astronomical object which is not an astronomical 
object itself</rdfs:comment>

rdfs:comment is appropriate.


Best,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Programmer / Astrophysicist / Ski-orienteer / Orienteer / Mountaineer
kjetil at kjernsmo.net
Homepage: http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/     OpenPGP KeyID: 6A6A0BBC