SV: do we need it?

[Tony Linde]

> mechanisms.  We need a stable vocabulary that remains stable while we
...
> take a stab at a terminology so we can get on to the real part of

I'd agree with that.

> application makers, be forewarned that the vocabulary is likely to get
> tugged around on occasions (hopefully not too often).  And one of those

Are applications likely to use the SV directly or via, say, data models. I
can see a data model item having a pointer to the term/concept that it
refers to in the SV and apps using that to present a definition to the user,
but would any apps be likely to access the SV directly? 

> underscores (eg gamma_ray) will turn out to be a terrible choice and
> maybe camelback (eg GammaRay) is even worse (probably it doesn't

If the terms in the SV are URIs, say http://ivoa.net/SV/cosmicBackground (to
use the format from Andrea's document), then they can remain the same while
the terms they reference, ie everything a user will be shown, can change. In
which case the decision over format is ours.

I would argue against the SV containing any structure though, so use
cosmicBackground and not cosmology.cosmicBackground.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Shaya [mailto:eshaya at umd.edu]
> Sent: 14 September 2007 19:22
> To: Tony Linde
> Cc: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: SV: do we need it?
> 
> Tony,
> 
>     It would be a mistake to try to come up with the Definitive
> Vocabulary of Astronomy, especially an IAU sanctioned one.  That is
> simply not the task, as I see it, for the IVOA.  We are exploring
> avenues of processes and services and trying to come up with workable
> mechanisms.  We need a stable vocabulary that remains stable while we
> hook up these services one to the other and test them out.  Perhaps
> underscores (eg gamma_ray) will turn out to be a terrible choice and
> maybe camelback (eg GammaRay) is even worse (probably it doesn't
> matter).  Maybe we need an extremely exacting subclassification scheme,
> or maybe we need an extremely loose set of vague relational terms
> instead (probably we will need both).
> 	So, the best thing to do is for this working group (semantics R-
> us) to
> take a stab at a terminology so we can get on to the real part of
> making
> applications.  We can then present it, in the normal course of
> achieving
> Recommendation status, to the entire IVOA. And let all of the
> application makers, be forewarned that the vocabulary is likely to get
> tugged around on occasions (hopefully not too often).  And one of those
> occasions will be when the IAU puts its stamp on things.  But I would
> not expect that to happen for a number of years.
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> Tony Linde wrote:
> > Back to being facetious? J
> >
> > It pays to check these things - I've had efforts derailed in the past
> for
> > not including all the appropriate stakeholders. And I assumed the
> list of
> > stakeholders in a SV would be rather larger than the IVOA.
> >
> > T.
> >
> > From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of
> > Rob Seaman
> > Sent: 14 September 2007 16:30
> > To: semantics at ivoa.net
> > Subject: Re: SV: do we need it?
> >
> > Tony inquires:
> >
> >
> > Is there some IAU (or similar) group we ought to engage with to
> ensure that
> > this effort is welcomed by astronomers?
> > The IVOA is that IAU group.  We fall under Commission 5.  The "O" in
> IVOA is
> > there for a reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > Rob
> >