Vocabulary: Ontology

[Tony Linde]

> To expand on this, the VO should only adopt a technology if it brings

I'd turn it around (more forceful rephrasing of Matthew's) so that the VO
should always use existing standards unless there is a really good reason to
invent its own.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Rob Seaman
> Sent: 11 September 2007 20:08
> To: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: Vocabulary: Ontology
> 
> Sorry to follow-up my own message (although this is perfectly legal
> in VOEvent):
> 
> > The issue isn't just development cost - it's cost of operations.  A
> > case could perhaps be made that using RDF would reduce the total
> > lifecycle cost for the VO (centers and/or users).  That case has
> > yet to be made.
> 
> To expand on this, the VO should only adopt a technology if it brings
> significant benefit to one or more projects (in general, to more than
> one VO project).  The familiar mantra applies of optimizing
> performance, cost and schedule - and of mitigating risks.  If RDF
> speeds design, implementation, deployment or maintenance for the same
> cost - or if RDF adds new performance opportunities - or if the VO
> can buy the same functionality for less money - or if extreme areas
> of risk are avoided - then RDF will naturally find a niche.
> 
> Rob