WD-Ontology

[P.Didelon]

Hi andrea,

thank for your answer and explanation.
more comments to try to reach a mutual comprehension point,


Andrea Preite Martinez wrote:

>
>> 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. 

Ok!
So ...
1) You need to introduce a concept MolecularSpecie,
and to avoid proliferation below "Thing" you would perhaps need an 
intermediate level
to "group" atoms and molecules?
2) actual existing concept related to rotation is "variability induced 
by rotation"
and to handle all other things/concepts related with rotation (line 
broadening,
material mixing in stellar evolution [model]...), unrelated to variability
we need a rotation concept just below 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?
>
> 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.

It would have had some interest to distinguish between objects which 
"hasEmission" in bands
and objects whcih has emission only in "this" band, but it seems not the 
case in the diagramm
and moreover the "only"  discrimination is only valid at a certain time 
taking into
account the sensiblity of available detectors.

Now to scan all XRays sources we must look at  XRaySource
and also at "AstrObject" which "hasEmission ->  XRay",
then handle CI and all the related pb (redundancies... )
don't this  introduce artificial complication for a simple case?

good week end

>
>
> 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.
> =================================================================================== 
>
>
>

-- 
Pierre
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 DIDELON :@: pdidelon_at_cea.fr        Phone : 33 (0)1 69 08 58 89
 CEA SACLAY - Service d'Astrophysique  91191 Gif-Sur-Yvette Cedex            
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 Aidez les enfants Tibétains : http://www.a-e-t.org/jcparrain.htm
   ou d'autres : http://www.sosesf.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prends garde, ô voyageur, la route aussi marche. Rainer Maria Rilke
-------------------------------------------------------------------