Derive SV from the IAU Thesaurus : (Was: Re: SV: do we need it?

[Tony Linde]

> 	(over here,
> 	of course, a (standard) English accent confers automatic
> 	credibility :). 

So my Aussie accent is the reason everyone ignores me ...

... no, I didn't think so!

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Brian Thomas
> Sent: 19 September 2007 18:43
> To: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: Re: Derive SV from the IAU Thesaurus : (Was: Re: SV: do we
> need it?
> 
> On Wednesday 19 September 2007, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> > The main objection to avid adoption to date has been (at least my
> > understanding)
> >         - not supported so many terms missing or out-of-date
> 
> 	As  I wrote earlier, it can't be _that_ many as to make this
> 	a useless work. How fast does Astronomy evolve? If I
> 	time-ported into the past by about 10 years, I'd think I
> 	could still have a conversation with an Astronomer with
> 	little to no problem.
> 
> >         - explicit ontological organization (this is a boon or a
> bane,
> > depending upon your inclination)
> 
> 	I'd see the existing broad/narrow structure as a boon, as
> 	other people have done the arguing as to what goes where.
> 
> >         - translations available but not descriptions (it's a
> thesaurus, not
> > a dictionary)
> 
> 	Ah, my fault here then. I tried to scrounge a copy up before
> 	writting, but didn't have time..bad mistake on my part.
> 	There are, however, other publications which are dictionaries,
> 	such as the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy.
> 
> http://www.ianridpath.com/books/oxforddictionary.htm
> 
> 	Which is up-to-date, however, using this work may put off
> 	 non-CommonWealth (or former British Empire) countries that
> 	are tired of English sources as being the 'definitive' ones (over
> here,
> 	of course, a (standard) English accent confers automatic
> 	credibility :). Perhaps there is an alternative which is
> acceptable;
> 	I haven't looked  too hard.
> 
> 	=brian
>