SV: do we need it?

[Tony Linde]

I'm still not clear how the SV might be used.

> The SV - as its smaller brother UCD - is not meant "directly" for
> astronomers, but to make the VO more inter-operable, exactly as the
> UCDs.

So, will the SV encompass all the UCDs (what might be implied by 'smaller
brother'? And in what way will the interoperability be improved? Where will
SV terms be used that will make two applications work better together?

I can see that the use of standard naming will make searches easier if, say,
datasets are restricted to the SV in keyword, subject etc fields. But this
isn't really an interop issue. 

> interoperable not only "quantities" using UCDs, but object types,
> phenomena, instruments, simulations, etc.

I'm wondering what astronomical terms would not be included in the SV?

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Preite Martinez [mailto:andrea.preitemartinez at iasf-
> roma.inaf.it]
> Sent: 15 September 2007 13:12
> To: Tony Linde
> Cc: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: SV: do we need it?
> 
> Quoting Tony Linde <Tony.Linde at leicester.ac.uk>:
> 
> > will the creation of what is termed a Standard
> > Vocabulary for astronomy be seen as an arrogant assumption? Is there
> some
> > IAU (or similar) group we ought to engage with to ensure that this
> effort is
> > welcomed by astronomers?
> 
> By astronomers?
> The SV - as its smaller brother UCD - is not meant "directly" for
> astronomers, but to make the VO more inter-operable, exactly as the
> UCDs.
> Btw, in the draft it is clearly said that the SV :
> "provides the VO with a common set of standard tokens for astronomical
> objects, processes, events, observations, instruments, and concepts
> which are likely to be needed within all VO contexts."
> 
> Astronomers had and have their astronomical vocabularies. They had the
> IAU thesaurus, discontinued in '95 (or '97?) for the retirement of the
> curators.
> If you are looking for a Standard Astronomical Vocabulary, please
> start from there: you'll find also basic relationships as broader,
> narrower, etc. between terms. If a SAV is what you want to build (but
> is this within the scope of the IVOA? - genuine question, I'm not
> sarcastic) just refresh the IAU thesaurus with the terms and concepts
> that appeared in the last 10 years.  Gamma Ray Bursts, to quote one.
> By the way, the astronomers didn't care much for a Thesaurus,
> otherwise it wouldn't had be abandoned 10 years ago.
> What astronomers have today is a list (I should say: a few lists, see
> my note on  Astronomical Keywords) of keywords they use to tag their
> papers. Far from a SAV!
> 
> Since 2005 we are not discussing SAV: we are discussing of how to
> extend and overcome the limitations in context that are built-in the
> UCDs. These limitations and the need to overcome them were put forward
> not by the UCD wg, not by me, but by those who needed to make
> interoperable not only "quantities" using UCDs, but object types,
> phenomena, instruments, simulations, etc.
> 
> 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
> =======================================================================
> ============
>