Format of tokens

[Brian Thomas]

Hi Andrea, 

A few comments on the overall structure..

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 11:16:08 am Andrea Preite Martinez wrote:
> Not considering the TopTopLevelConcept AstroObject, the 200 concepts  
> are grouped under 7 TopLevelConcepts.

#From ontology: ObjectTypes_0.95
#TopLevelConcepts:
#AstroObject
#	CompoundObject

This looks like a 'grouping' concept which is always 'abstract' (never a direct instance
created. Do we really want stuff like that in the Thesaurus/Vocab? I'll agree its needed
in the Ontology, just not sure about in the dictionary where I'd expect all the concepts 
to be 'concrete'.

#	EMSource
#	InterStellarMedium
#	StellarObject
#	SubStellarObject
#	SupermassiveBlackHole
#	Unknown

This one is problematic..I'd expect it to not be a descendant of 'AstroObject' since there are
other types of unknowns. Perhaps it should be renamed to "UnknownAstroObject", or will
the namespace make this clear in all cases?

#	VariableObject

Similar to "Unknown", there are other types of variable objects.

##############################
#Other TopLevelConcepts  not shown in the list:
#
#AstroPortion

SImilar argument to 'CompoundObject'

#AtomicElement
#Class

Similar argument to "CompoundObject". If this is meant to be "Astronomy object class", then
its not needed, as we define everything explicitly (I would hope..e.g. no field under AstroOBject
called "class")

#EMSpectrumRange
#Measurement

YOu will need "Quantity" as well as "Accuracy/Error", but since these are not included now, I wont
get uptight about it. :)

#Morphology
#Process

	-brian