Threads

[Andrea Preite Martinez]

Quoting Tony Linde <Tony.Linde at leicester.ac.uk>:

> I think the essence of the discussion is that we do not want a token-based,
> UCD-like vocabulary. We want one that conforms to W3C standards: the rest of
> the discussion is about the question above. Tokens are irrelevant to
> discussions of vocabularies AND ontologies.

My modest opinion is that the discussion of vocabularies AND  
ontologies, of SKOS or OWL could be very important if related to the  
right requirements. If I remember correctly you were asking for new  
requirements few posts ago. I still haven't seen that.
Let's convince bike riders that they need much better than a bicycle,  
because VO users could do such and such marvellous thinks if they use  
SKOR or OWL to label their data.
On the other hand, I think that the discussion of vocabularies AND  
ontologies, of SKOS or OWL, is perfectly irrelevant to the present  
user requirements.
And the draft is a (perfectible) response to those.

Andrea
===================================================================================
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
===================================================================================