What use the AstroOntology

[Tony Linde]

I won't even attempt to enter the astronomical discussion of QSOs and AGNs,
but do wonder if we're conflating two different approaches here: an
AstroOntology and sets of identification rules. 

The AstroOntology is a set of terms used in astronomy and the relations
(is-a-type-of, is-a-component-of, ...) between them.

OTOH there will be numerous sets of identification rules for each of the
terms: such as the ones being discussed here for QSOs and AGNs. The rules
may also be context driven: in context A the rules are this set while in
context B they are another set.

It seems to be that the ontology changes relatively infrequently while the
rules (at least for terms on the fringe of the ontology) change much more
frequently.

An ontology would be hideously inefficient at the job of identifying objects
from a set of observations. I'm not even sure it would be possible given the
limited ability of OWL to contain identification rules to the depth needed
for QSO vs AGN. I think any putative use of an AstroOntology to infer
objects from observations is doomed to fail.

We have to ask what we want to use an ontology for. Then decide if the
structures of OWL are up to the job. The QSO/AGN discussion seems to show
that any definitions added to the ontology need to be limited and for
guidance only: they cannot serve as identification rules. 

At least, I don't think they can. Can they?

Cheers,
Tony.
-- 
Tony Linde
Phone:  +44 (0)116 223 1292    Mobile: +44 (0)785 298 8840
Fax:    +44 (0)116 252 3311    Email:  Tony.Linde at leicester.ac.uk
Post:   Department of Physics & Astronomy,
        University of Leicester
        Leicester, UK   LE1 7RH
Web:    http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~ael

Project Manager, EuroVO VOTech   http://eurovotech.org 
Programme Manager, AstroGrid     http://www.astrogrid.org 
 

http://www.Taglocity.com Tags: IVOA, semantics