Theoretical Data UCD Proposal

[Brian Thomas]

On Wednesday 24 October 2007, Rob Seaman wrote:
> A star is like a planet in that we all want it to have a detailed  
> definition, even if we disagree on those details.  For most of us,  
> however, a star's energy budget includes nuclear reactions.  By such  
> a definition, compact post-nuclear residue such as white dwarfs and  
> neutron "stars" may be stellar objects, but are not stars.  
> [snip]

Ah, I had not considered that point of view, and it is clear, and I agree
with you. But what did the theorists mean to imply? I guess this (further)
indicates to me that having a textual description of the term is 
invaluable, and while that may not be 'in scope' for a thesaurus, its
ultimately needed.

> 
> If we don't want to recognize aliases, perhaps we should have no  
> interest in the IAU Thesaurus.

I think you misread my point. I wasn't saying aliases are useless, only that
I generally want to see this "straitforward" project terminated as rapidly as
possible, and, as such, I would desire to see very little editing of the IAU 
Thesaurus. Sure, without aliases, a thesaurus is basically a vocabulary, and
yes, we will want to add more of them, just not in the IAU Thesaurus (at this
time). 

Lets put a 'stable in the document', give it a version, and post a VO Note so we
can move the process forward towards getting some standard published. 
Recognize that editing will be an ongoing (and probably) never-ending process.
We cant wait for 'the perfect' document before pushing this forward.

=brian



>