Vocabularies and VOEvent

[Rob Seaman]

Rick wrote:

> The only sign of hope, in this regard, is the comforting knowledge  
> that there IS no general solution.

I save my store of hope for issues involving my wife and kids.

Has this process really been so terrible?  We've had some rousing  
discussions at workshops and the Pickerel (and several other pubs in  
both old and new Cambridge).  Rick himself had the opportunity to  
sample Rolling Rock, Pennsylvania's finest ("33"), at the Orlando SPIE  
- although I believe the consensus was strongly in favor of the Three  
Philosophers.

I think what has been defined *is* a general solution, with namespaces  
for specific purposes like VOEvent.

> Done problem.   Ages ago, I sent around a list of handy-dandy IAU/ 
> IVOAT words which covered all thinkable terms like this and a bit  
> more.

I'd prefer we start with the minimum necessary list, i.e., the list of  
known transient phenomena plus some variation of "other".  That is,  
first cover the use case of specifying inferences in <Why>.  I don't  
need the word "astrolabe" for this purpose.

> Pick and choose, knowing that the rest of us will be able to know  
> what you are saying.

Well, we will need to write the corresponding definitions down at some  
point.

The nature of science, of course, is a process to refine and  
occasionally dramatically redefine terms.  This is the rocket science  
part of the process.  This is the purpose of VOEvent.  Why else follow- 
up discoveries?

Rob