What use the AstroOntology

[kborne at gmu.edu]

In addressing the subject question, I like to think of ontologies
as useful for search and discovery (of metadata and data).  The
application of ontologies in the social networking sense (i.e.,
tagging and folksonomies) allows researchers to tag scientifically
useful data (and metadata) by the science application area (e.g.,
AGN research, or QSO research) in which they found it to be
applicable.  This assertion does not mean that this tag is 
correct or universally acceptable, but it means that someone
found it useful to describe a particular IVOA resource.  In this
context, some future researcher may then search for similarly 
tagged items for their own research (which they may accept or reject
according to their own scientific needs and/or current understanding).  
None of this imputes a greater meaning to the tag than that of 
a single term within a larger scientifically meaningful tag cloud.
Tag clouds provide validation of the tags through repeated assertions
of that tag to describe a particular resource (hence, the tag appears
in a larger font presentation than the other tags).  Implementing these
assertions and these IVOA resource search & discovery capabilities is 
made easier through the AstroOntology (OWL or RDF triplets or whatever).

- Kirk Borne
  George Mason University
  http://classweb.gmu.edu/kborne/


> From: "Tony Linde" <Tony.Linde at leicester.ac.uk>
> To: "'IVOA semantics'" <semantics at ivoa.net>
> Subject: What use the AstroOntology 
> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 11:19:55 -0000
> 
> 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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kirk D. Borne
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, SSDOO Program Manager, Perot Systems (ex-QSS)
and George Mason University, Associate Research Professor, College of Science
<mailto:kirk.borne at gsfc.nasa.gov>  Tel. +1-301-286-0696  Fax: 301-286-1771
Staff page:      http://rings.gsfc.nasa.gov/
US Virtual Observatory:  http://www.us-vo.org/
Large Synoptic Survey Telescope:  http://www.lssto.org/