SV and Thesaurus - decide

[Tony Linde]

In general I agree with creating an SV if the rest of the IVOA thinks it
will be useful (I cannot comment since there are no use cases which might
indicate its usefulness). I'm not sure anyone here has clearly elucidated
the scope of an SV either.

But I am not sure what we would be saying YES to. If it is simply that of an
SV rather than an SAV, then I'll abstain for the above reason, but am happy
for others to make the decision if they think they know what they are
deciding on. 

If you're looking for any decision on your NOTE re vocabularies, Andrea,
then the answer is a definite NO: we are not ready to proceed with
developing any vocabulary since we have no decision on vocab format,
terminology format, structure (if any), grammar (if it is needed) etc.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrea Preite Martinez
> Sent: 20 September 2007 10:51
> To: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: SV and Thesaurus - decide
> 
> I think the subject of this discussion is becoming clearer: at the
> beginning I had the impression that we were watching different movies!
> :-)
> 
> Movie A is the SV as proposed in the draft paper. It is a (proposed)
> collection of standard, centrally defined and maintained list of
> tokens that allows to express any possible astronomical term, locally
> defined.
> It is not specifically meant for humans, but human readable.
> There is no associated ontological structure.
> A simple basic grammar allows putting together SV tokens to express
> complex concepts or concatenation of concepts.
> It is not particularly devised to be a component of the user I/F of a
> searching tool, to help a user to refine his search.
> 
> Movie B is intended as *the* standard list of astronomical terms,
> centrally defined and maintained.
> It is (also) meant for humans.
> Its use within the VO needs to be clarified.
> Under discussion is the degree of ontological information to associate
> to the terms of such list.
> The starting point to build it can be the old IAU Thesaurus. Much
> longer than Movie A, but size is not a problem.(see note below)
> 
> Movie A (the SV) is in the editing phase.
> For Movie B (the Thesaurus) we need a script and a producer.
> Well, enough with the movie metaphor!
> 
> I call for a decision on the SV draft.
> After reading it, please post your opinion (possibly by the end of the
> september):
> 
> - YES, we can go on discussing/commenting/editing it, with the
> ultimate goal to define an IVOA SV standard.
> - NO, let's stop wasting our time on the SV.
> 
> There are no other options as far as the SV is concerned.
> 
> The two topics are well separated: whichever decision we assume for
> the IVOA SV will not prevent us from deciding to start working on the
> IVOA Thesaurus. Actually, we did start already!!
> 
> Andrea
> 
> Note:
> What could become a size-problem for Movie B is related to the
> definition of the minimum level of semantic difference between two
> terms of the list. By convention a B star is considered different from
> an F star. Is a pulsating B star different from a B star? Only users
> can decide. Has the term pulsating B star ever being used by
> astronomers? Yes: then the term is embarked, No, the term is
> discarded. But also fast pulsating B star has been used. Should we
> embark it? How many level of qualifiers/modifiers should we allow?
> 
> =======================================================================
> ============
> 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
> =======================================================================
> ============
>