Vocab AND Ontology?

[Tony Linde]

I'd like to propose, if it is feasible, a way forward on the issue of
creating an SV. Namely that:
 
1. subject to discussion and resolution of the points raised in Andrea's
Note, sections 3.1/2/3, we proceed with the creation of a SV by a subgroup
of this wg;
2. that the SV should be created in the OWL format, for which there are
several tools, not least, Protege;
3. that all initial relationships between SV terms be members of either the
NarrowerThan or BroaderThan classes (with the inverse relationship being a
member of the other);
4. every release of the OWL format be accompanied by a translation into the
SKOS format for use as a W3C standard vocabulary (other formats for
individuals or subgroups to create from either of these releases).
 
The above would ensure that the SV could be created as quickly as some
people seem to think is necessary using a well-known and popular tool
(Protege). This initial effort would have as its scope only the terms useful
in an SV (need to define what this is). The relationship between terms would
be limited to a small number of relationship types, all of which must be
classifiable (in vocabulary terms) as narrower or broader. This latter will
ensure that a classic SKOS-type (and any other type) of vocabulary could be
derived from the ontology and that it will conform to the multi-hierarchy
form explained by Bernard.
 
I'd further propose that:
 
5. the subgroup produces a first draft within one month of the interop using
the terms already defined in Andrea's Note so that the wg can check it out
and finally sign off that this is a viable way forward;
6. during that same month, the wg discuss and agree on the issues in points
3.1/2/3 and any others in the Note;
7. when the first draft is agreed, the SV subgroup continue its work,
producing further drafts no slower than one per month;
8. using these drafts, people who wish to work with vocabularies produce
test applications for discussion here and presentation at the next interop
(using the SKOS or other derived formats);
9. using these drafts, people who wish to work with ontologies, extend the
SV ontology as necessary and produce applications that demonstrate the use
and usefulness of ontologies to astronomy, also for presentation at the next
interop;
10. and that following these presentations at the next interop, the wg
decide whether to continue with a separate SV development or to accept that
all applications can be met with an ontology or some other outcome.
 
I *would* like to hear from the vocabulary/ontology experts here as to
whether this joining of the two efforts is technically and methodologically
feasible. If so, I'd suggest that people like Bernard, Ed, Brian also join
the SV effort to ensure that the initial SV structures are consistent with
good ontology practice (or produce an initial template for the subgroup to
use).
 
I think this way forward will meet everyone's needs and will allow us to
test these new technologies without compromising speed of development or end
applications.
 
Cheers,
Tony.
 
-- 
Tony Linde
Phone:  +44 (0)116 223 1292    Mobile: +44 (0)785 298 8840
Email:  Tony.Linde at leicester.ac.uk
Web:    http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~ael
 
Project Manager, EuroVO VOTech   http://eurovotech.org 
Programme Manager, AstroGrid     http://www.astrogrid.org 
Chair, JISC U&I Workgroup        http://tinyurl.com/ymxvqw
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20070923/cfe61b66/attachment-0001.html>