WD-Ontology

[P.Didelon]

Hi Andrea and all,

some basic and naive comments on content/detail and organisation/structure
more than on methodology.

Andrea Preite Martinez wrote:

> A Working Draft on
>
> Ontology of Astronomical Object Types, version 1.0
>
> has been uploaded in the Document section of IVOA
> http://ivoa.net/Documents/latest/AstrObjectOntology.html
>
I have only partially read it, and mainly try to understand the graphics,
before to go futher I had some comments/questions,
your answer would certainly help me to clarify my mind ,
show me how to interact and what level of comment is required.

First of all the structure of the document in HTML and PDF are differents;
process sub section as ref 4.2.7 or 4.2.2 by ex., moreover html 
formatting is
sometimes very bad, mainly with graphics (some section numbers are missing,
some section are not left aligned...)

in the top-level concept :
- instead having AtomicElement wouldn't be more appropriate to have Matter
which can have (be specialized in?) several sub-section :
 a) CompositeElement,like solution, ice, cristal, alloy
 b)SimpleElement, this one with an other sub level containing molecule,atom
but then where can be put macromolecule,polymers.... if needed,
prehaps not in astronomy

in the process section
rotation don't always induce variability, like for homogenous and 
symetric objects
but can nevertheless be measured through line broadening,
perhaps it would be  better to attached it directly to process

I am very uncomfortable with the "handling" of EM,
decoupled in EMSource under AstrObject and EMSpectrumRange at toplevel
beneath Process, itself containing Emission (dealing only with EM, at 
least for the moment,
waiting for cosmics rays inclusion and gravitational waves perhaps).
Why dsitinguish EMSource under AstrObject in which everything seems to be
related to EM... at least for the moment?
EMSource beeing itself "subdivided" in optical,UV,Gamma, XRay... sub level
there is two definition/usage of EM spectrum, is this a reuse or diff. 
concepts?

Sincerely yours,
Pierre Didelon