Vocab AND Ontology?

[Brian Thomas]

On Monday 24 September 2007 10:15:32 am Bernard Vatant wrote:
> This example again to illustrate why I'm concerned about any methodology 
> based on : let's do SKOS first, and then we will transform into OWL, or 
> the other way round.

	Just to quickly chime in..

	My point of view is based on pragmatism. I'd prefer an imperfect
	(first) product to none at all. If using a certain form of recording the
	SV promotes less argument (because its simpler) then I'd go for that.

	I'd rather we use an industry standard for which there are good, free, tools.
	In this regard, OWL is the 'best', however, if we choose SKOS, then because
	it limits the freedom of relating terms, it might be better, as this limits
	the arguments over how stuff is related to other stuff, and a product
	would be produced sooner.

	I'd prefer an existing 'standard' to work with such as the IAU Thesaurus,
	but a quick effort last week to try to translate the terms into OWL showed 
	me that its not a quick (few hours) project, and probably will take the same 
	effort as reusing the work by Andrea etal ("ASV"). Also, the IAU Thesaurus has 
	broader range than trying to just description of astronomical targets, so
	thats a possible negative too. OTOH, if we started with the ASV I'd
	still want to do at least a cursory check versus the IAU Thesaurus for
	missed terms/relationships.

	Tony's plan sounded great, but I think if you substitued "OWL" for "SKOS"
	its still very reasonable. 

	Cheers,

	=brian