Vocabularies: formal parenthesis

[Tony Linde]

> Here I come to the point raised by Tony.
> 
> Can we say that the main subject treated in this draft is: (a) outside
> the scope of the WG and/or (b) never presented to the WG and/or (c)
> never discussed?

I'm happy to concede that the vocabulary is a suitable topic for discussion
without the wg agreeing so. 

But none of this is the point I raised. I said that this wg had not
discussed the *preparation of a WD* for either this vocabulary nor for the
preceding ontology, nor has the wg agreed a format for vocabularies, nor did
the wg agree *who* should work on these documents. I would have liked to
have been on the team to produce these WDs and I'm sure there are others who
might have volunteered. The wg should have decided who would work on these
if they are to be considered as WDs. I also think the format discussion
should have happened first. 

The *workgroup* was not consulted about creating the WDs and so they are
_not_ working drafts - they are personal documents and so should be posted
as NOTES.

There is nothing wrong with individuals or small groups of collaborators
producing their own work and making it known to the IVOA but such work
should be presented as NOTEs, not as WDs. As a NOTE, the document is not
contentious and is a suitable starting point for a discussion about
producing a WD.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Preite Martinez [mailto:andrea.preitemartinez at iasf-
> roma.inaf.it]
> Sent: 12 September 2007 14:54
> To: Tony Linde
> Cc: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: Vocabularies: formal parenthesis
> 
> Quoting Tony Linde <Tony.Linde at leicester.ac.uk>:
> 
> > The point I was making is that this is a *private* document and not
> one
> > which belongs to the working group. The wg has not decided it wants a
> > vocabulary document (or anything at all at this point) and if/when it
> does
> > so decide, it will first debate the format in which it wants that
> vocabulary
> > and then will start work on that document.
> >
> > If the wg decides that a Note which a person or group has submitted
> is a
> > useful starting point for a WD then it can ask that the Note be
> copied to a
> > WD document with the appropriate heading changes.
> >
> > These documents are Notes only and should be written and posted as
> such. A
> > WD can only be created when the wg decides that it wants one after
> suitable
> > discussion.
> 
> Let me first remind you what I already said in a msg posted on Mon, 10
> Sep 2007.
> 
> The document under discussion (and of course subject to revision as a
> result of this discussion) is about:
> 
> 1. the definition of a Standard Vocabulary.
> This is to assure inter-operability among different VO groups talking
> different astronomical dialects. Using the SV they can understand each
> other just declaring what the "equivalence" of their concepts is
> against a standard way to define those concepts (8 pages, excluding
> examples).
> 
> 2. the way (format) these vocabularies could be written (2 pages,
> including a figure and an example).
> I stress the "could": this is a minimal proposal, using a format
> widely adopted in other IVOA documents / standards.
> 
> Unfortunately, we treated the format in the first place, and this
> possibly gave the readers the wrong impression that it was our first
> priority, or the main scope of the document. Which is not, although
> not at all irrelevant ? as the discussion is showing.
> 
> Here I come to the point raised by Tony.
> 
> Can we say that the main subject treated in this draft is: (a) outside
> the scope of the WG and/or (b) never presented to the WG and/or (c)
> never discussed?
> 
> What follows can help answer the above questions.
> 
> (a) outside the scope of the WG Semantics?
> =========================================
> 
>  From the Charter of the Semantics WG (discussed: InterOp Madrid,
> approved by Exec: 17 May 2006) :
> ..
> 2. A rationale for Semantics
> ..
> In the same period of time, other WGs realized the need to interact
> with our WG in order to standardise the vocabulary used to describe
> the data they were working on (e.g.: DM/SSAP, VOEvents/VOConcepts).
> The request (implicit at the beginning) was to expand and generalize
> the work done on UCDs, and so update our task into the definition of a
> standard vocabulary in the fields covered by IVOA activities.
> ..
> 3. A charter for the Semantics WG
> ..
> The activities of the IVOA Semantics WG can be classified as follows:
> - Maintenance of UCDs
> - IVOA Standard Vocabulary
> - Exploration of Ontologies
> ..
> 3.2. Standard Vocabulary
> ..
> The main activity of the Semantics WG will be to define the basic
> elements of a Standard Vocabulary (SV) in all the fields covered by
> IVOA activities. Starting from already available lists of astronomical
> words, objects, or concepts (the old thesaurus, keywords used in
> Journals, and the actual text of scientific papers), we will try to
> define the basic concepts (processes, instruments, methods, object
> types, etc.), the instances of these concepts, and possibly the
> relationships among them. The concepts will be described using a
> syntax similar to that already used for UCDs.
> 
> 
> (b)-(c) never presented / discussed?
> ====================================
> 
> A brief (and certainly incomplete) chronology concerning the Standard
> Vocabulary:
> 
> A private note on Standard Vocabulary firstly appeared on the WG page
> at the end of 2005 (20-12-2005), upgraded 05-05-2006;
> 
> Discussions:
> within WG session:
> - at Madrid InterOp (presentation on: Astronomical Thesaurus);
> - at Victoria InterOp (presentation on: Towards an IVOA standard
> vocabulary)
> - at Beijing InterOp (Sub-session: Vocabulary: astronomical keywords
> and the VO)
> 
> Joint discussions:
> - with VOEvent and DM WGs at Kyoto InterOp;
> - then with Theory IG at Victoria InterOp;
> 
> Within the VOEvent WG:
> - Since May 2006, a special page
> (http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/VOEventVocabulary ) is open
> to present   "...  the discussion in the IvoaVOEvent working group of
> how to build a controlled vocabulary for describing: astrophysical
> objects, astrophysical processes,  astronomical instrumentation .."
> Links to the three vocabularies are provided there. The lists of
> concept/SV-token are nothing else but those also published in the
> Semantics page in the private document on Standard Vocabulary (see
> above).
> - VOEvent Workshop, April 13-14, 2005
> - The Second VOEvent Workshop, Tucson, December 5 - 6, 2005
> 
> End of the second formal parenthesis
> 
> Cheers
> Andrea
> 
> =======================================================================
> ============
> Andrea Preite Martinez                 andrea.preitemartinez at iasf-
> roma.inaf.it
> IASF                                   Tel.IASF:+39.06.4993.4641
> Via del Fosso del Cavaliere 100        Tel.CDS :+33.3.90242452
> I-00133 Roma                           Cell.   :+39.320.43.15.383
>                                         Skype   :andrea.preite.martinez
> =======================================================================
> ============
>