Vocab AND Ontology?

[Brian Thomas]

	Hi Frederic,

	First off, great work!

On Thursday 04 October 2007, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> Yes, the IAU thesaurus is larger than we'd prefer and contains lots  
> of historical baggage (no, we don't need a token for Ramsden  
> eyepieces), but it's there, is official, was "easily" extended to  
> include more modern concepts (e.g. Type Ia supernovae weren't quite  
> as important in the 80's and so were left out!) and could just as  
> easily be extended to cover the other things needed by, e.g., VOEvent.
> 

	My main, and I hope salient, comments other than praise concern
	the use of namespaces in the document. First, I'd change 

http://www.Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE/~hessman/rdf/IAU#

	to something more VO/IAU-ish, eg.

http://ivoa.net/rdf/IAUThesaurus#

	Also, any of the new terms which have been introduced should belong 
	to a different 'namespace' from the IAU Thesaurus per-se. While I will 
	not quibble about the need for additional terms, I do think its not 
	desirable to mix in stuff which is not properly part of the official 
	namespace of the Thesaurus. I doubt we are the official body for 
	declaring a new version of this document.

	So, I see 2 different ways to proceed here, either:

	1. Rename the work you have done to uniform, new namespace,
	e.g. "VO Standard Vocabulary".

	=or=

	2.  Make a document which imports all of the various bits which will
	comprise the standard vocabulary, (e.g. VO SV is the sum of a variety of 
	namespaces, e.g. IAU Thesaurus + VOEvent terms + etc.)

	I vastly prefer the later approach, and I know how I would do this in 
	OWL, but unsure of the proper mechanism for SKOS (at the very least
	you can change all of the rdf:resource tags on relevant, new, triplets).

> I'm sure we could agree on a better text format to conform to  
> standard ontology usage, but everything should be self-explanatory.

	=brian