Vocabulary+SV

[Frederic V. Hessman]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Doug Tody wrote:

>> My point of view is:
>> - Yes, if the present format is preventing further evolution and use.
>> - Else: No. But we should add that the format (simple-txt or xml) can
>> be easily transformed into something more suitable to fulfil the
>> needs, should they evolve.
> The key thing here is to define a standard vocabulary for  
> astronomical object types, so that we can treat these consistently  
> within the VO. For most such purposes, usage will be quite simple  
> (e.g. verifying that input is valid), and the format is not  
> important so long as it is simple and easy to deal with in a wide  
> variety of languages and client environments, without adding any  
> new requirements or software dependencies (this last is very  
> important). A simple text and/or XML format, with a single file  
> containing the entire vocabulary, is a good choice.
Which is basically all that we did, really.  It was mostly my fault  
for trying to stick in a bit of light-weight ontology/inference  
functionality.

> To experiment with sophisticated ontology/inference technologies  
> (which is a secondary priority here) it should be easy to auto- 
> generate RDF, SKOS, etc. from a simple-format master vocabulary, so  
> long as this contains all the essential information. If desired  
> this could probably even be done on-the-fly by a service,  
> delivering the vocabulary in any desired format. If/when a new  
> technology comes along, a new translator could easly be added.
Ah, but one of the main changes of direction was to democratize the  
process of vocabulary definition:  if any VO (or other) group  
produces their own specialized vocabulary, then we all profit if  
there's a standard exchange format.  If all that we have are our  
ASCII text files, we're practically dead in the water.  Although all  
we need are tokens, the tokens have to have some (even somewhat  
ambiguous) standard meaning in order to be useful.

> For example if someone wants to build a portal which can translate  
> terminology between a local dialect and a VO standard, this might  
> be a good application to try out some more advanced semantic  
> technology. Most likely the format in which the vocabulary data is  
> required will be specific to the technology being used, hence it  
> makes sense to defer the translation until the data is to be used.  
> The only thing I would suggest is that it might be worthwhile to  
> verify that the model upon which the master vocabulary is based is  
> general enough to support auto-translation to various standard  
> ontological formats.
I think the main point is that it doesn't really matter what format  
we use, as long as 1) VOcabulary remains primarily a token list, 2)  
thus remains "easy" to process with "standard" tools, and 3) we all  
adopt it as the main (only?) standard in our daily VO-operations (the  
latter is the whole point of this frustrating exercise).  If someone  
needs a copy in OWL or Excel or CSV or cunieform, then there will  
always be simple means for translating a token list, with or without  
some ontological baggage.

Rick

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
------------------------
Dr. Frederic V. Hessman     Hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE
Institut für Astrophysik          Tel.  +49-551-39-5052
Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1         Fax +49-551-39-5043
37077 Goettingen                 Room F04-133
http://www.Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.de/~hessman
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-------------------------
MONET: a MOnitoring NEtwork of Telescopes
http://monet.Uni-Goettingen.de
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-------------------------


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20070911/625e716c/attachment-0001.html>