SV Scope

[Tony Linde]

> [1]: I've created a couple of new wiki pages (see links from
> http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaSemantics#Standard_Vocabulary)

> in which we can define use cases and the scope of the SV. Maybe
> populating these will help reach consensus.

In one of those, http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/StdVocabScope,
Andrea claims that the scope of the SV is already set out in the charter of
this group. I've commented that those parts of the charter that he quotes
are more statements of intent (ie that the wg ought to create a SV) than any
indicator of scope. Since the mailing list is a better place for
discussions, perhaps others would like to comment here on whether or not
those statements constitute a scope or not.

T.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-semantics at eso.org [mailto:owner-semantics at eso.org] On
> Behalf Of Tony Linde
> Sent: 25 September 2007 10:51
> To: semantics at ivoa.net
> Subject: RE: How to choose?
> 
> I'm not too sure what you're arguing for/against, Rob. For consensus -
> I
> agree but noted dubiety. For more time to discuss this - I agree but
> others
> think we need an SV *now*. Against using one method for all problems -
> definitely but I call to mind past history of IVOA (I'm only surprised
> no-one has proposed VOTable for the SV). For a set of use cases - I
> agree
> and have called for them before [1]. For further study of Frost -
> absolutely.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned this aspect of the threads is simply about
> which
> technology to use for the SV, not about what the whole area of
> semantics
> might mean to the whole area of the VO.
> 
> [1]: I've created a couple of new wiki pages (see links from
> http://www.ivoa.net/twiki/bin/view/IVOA/IvoaSemantics#Standard_Vocabula
> ry)
> in which we can define use cases and the scope of the SV. Maybe
> populating
> these will help reach consensus.
> 
> T.
>