Vocab AND Ontology?

[Ed Shaya]

Tony,
	Sorry. I read this after I wrote my last e-mail.  You had already 
pretty similar ideas.
Ed

Tony Linde wrote:
> 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.
>  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eshaya.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20070924/262ae922/attachment-0001.vcf>