Threads

[Tony Linde]

> right requirements. If I remember correctly you were asking for new
> requirements few posts ago. I still haven't seen that.

No, I was asking for requirements for a SV. And I haven't seen that either.

> 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.

Can you point us to the wiki page or other document listing those user
requirements. If they are spread across emails or presentations, it would be
useful if you could either add them to the use case wiki page I created a
couple of days ago or create one of your own. Then the wg can assess the
relevance for itself.

Your Note was about a 'Standard Vocabulary': in any discussion of a
vocabulary, SKOS and OWL are certainly relevant, more so than UCD-like
tokens. (Indeed, maybe it is time to convert UCDs into a more standard form,
like SKOS, and drop the tokenised form altogether?)

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Andrea Preite Martinez
> Sent: 28 September 2007 08:20
> To: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: Threads
> 
> 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
> =======================================================================
> ============
> 
>