Vocab format

[Tony Linde]

> 	Im not sure I follow the question. Do you mean we don't want to
> create a 'Galaxy' term
> 	because there are various kinds of Galaxy, and thats too broad?
> I'd disagree with that.

No, broader and narrower are relationships: so you would record the relationship that SeyfertGalaxy is a narrowing of the term, Galaxy. Certainly we would want to record both terms, but do we want to record the realtionships? And, to start with, I'd say no. The above relationship is probably a safe bet but many (and I'm thinking of perhaps cosmology -> cosmicBackground) are less certain or more problematic, so would reckon that we skip all relationships at the beginning.

We might even, later, decide that we'd rather use OWL or similar to record relationships rather than SKOS.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Thomas
> Sent: 14 September 2007 21:09
> To: semantics
> Subject: Re: Vocab format
> 
> On Friday 14 September 2007 3:43:03 pm Tony Linde wrote:
> >
> > Question: can we define vocabularies with only simple terms or do we
> need the concepts of narrower and broader
> > terminologies? Any other such concepts?
> >
> 
> 	Im not sure I follow the question. Do you mean we don't want to
> create a 'Galaxy' term
> 	because there are various kinds of Galaxy, and thats too broad?
> I'd disagree with that.
> 
> 	I do think that the focus should be solely on astronomical
> objects for the time being (e.g. no worrying
> 	about 'data provider', 'publisher', 'equation', 'workflow', etc,
> etc. and the gazillion other
> 	terms one might associate with doing astronomy work online).
> 
> 	=brian