WD-Ontology

[Andrea Preite Martinez]

Salut Pierre

>
> 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...)

Yes, you are right, moving files from OpenOffice, MSOffice, .pdf,  
.html,  I realized only after publishing them in the IVOA that some  
text went around figures making formatting quite ugly! So I  
reformatted the .pdf version, and in doing so, in order to keep large  
figures into one page, I rearranged sub-sections. So, although the  
content is the same, let?s say that the good / nicer version is the  
pdf one.

> 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

remember that this is just an ontology of astronomical object types.  
Concepts different from object types (usually ranges of properties)  
are introduced when they are needed. And the building process is still  
going on.

>
> 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?
Concepts grouped in "EMSource" are "object-Types" as recognized and  
named by the community (but for OpticalSource, we just put it there  
for "continuity", we should probably erase it, although it is harmless).
Concepts under EMSpectrumRange are "ranges" of the property "hasEmission".
An example: a source only observed in the x-rays will be classified  
(by the community, not by me or by the ontology) as an object type  
described by the concept XRaySource.
An object type XYZ can have among its definition "hasEmission ->  
XRay", but its type is XYZ.

Ciao
Andrea


===================================================================================
Andrea Preite Martinez                 andrea.preitemartinez at iasf-roma.inaf.it
IASF                                   Tel.IASF:+39.06.4993.4641
Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100        Tel.CDS :+33.3.90242452
I-00133 Roma                           Cell.1  :+39.320.43.15.383
                                        Cell.2  :+39.
===================================================================================