New issue?: vocabulary maintenance

[Alasdair Gray]

Rob Seaman wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Alasdair Gray wrote:
>
>> The big problem with the IAU-93 is that there are no definitions for 
>> the terms. This is another reason we need to get the IVOAT, or at 
>> least an early version of it, ready for use. However, there will 
>> ultimately be the need for mappings between pairs of vocabularies as 
>> it may not always be possible to express these by going through a 
>> central vocabulary.
>
> It is ultimately the IAU who has responsibility for defining 
> astronomical terms (e.g., the recent fuss over the meaning of the word 
> "planet").  Alternately, one can pick a random paper from the 
> literature and find that each author may define or redefine terms as 
> needed:  "For the purposes of this paper, a galaxy is deemed to be a 
> fuzzy pink banana."
>
> If we're not very careful here we're likely to get individual or 
> collective astronomers either A) angry, or worse yet, B) amused at the 
> temerity of their pet programmers to assume the responsibility for 
> defining terms.
An important point to keep in mind. However, without definitions (and by 
definition I do not mean a way of classifying what would be tagged with 
the resource, but a semantic explanation of the term) we will not know 
the intended meaning behind the terms which will make them more 
difficult to use.
>
> Tread lightly.
Or have very good balance as we tread the tight rope.

Alasdair
>
> Rob
>