On overstating one's argument (was Re: On the impossibility of defining anything whatsoever (as Rob might have you believe) (Was: Re: New issue?: vocabulary maintenance))

[Alasdair J G Gray]

Rob Seaman wrote:
> Yo, Bri,
[snip]
>
> Would referencing external sources, i.e., via a URL to wikiville, be 
> sufficient - whatever the purpose(s)?  A collection of hyperlinks is 
> equivalent to the OED editor's compendium of usage.
It would be better if we could provide some text which could also have 
links to external sources, but a user should be able to get an idea of 
the meaning of the concept without needing to look at further external 
sources. (Particularly if these are out of your control and could change 
underneath you, e.g. wikipedia.)
>
>> I would like to further add that if some people argue with this 
>> definition..
>> so what?
>
> The definition of "planet" started a near uprising at the IAU.
>
>> They may start their own vocabulary, -or-, they may engage
>> us to either fix the definition or to evolve the vocabulary.
>
> ...or they may regard the IVOA as arrogant and reject participation in 
> virtual endeavors.
>
> Could someone clarify whether each vocabulary is intended to have its 
> own definitions, or rather whether all synonyms in the greater 
> thesauri are intended to map to a single centralized unitary definition?
I would say that each vocabulary is meant to have its own definition. 
This could be the same as another vocabularies definition for the term, 
but it should be explicitly stated in each vocabulary.

Alasdair

-- 
Dr Alasdair J G Gray
http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~agray/

Explicator project 
http://explicator.dcs.gla.ac.uk/

Office: F161
Tel: 	+44 141 330 6292

Postal: Computing Science,
	17 Lilybank Gardens,
	University of Glasgow,
	Glasgow,
	G12 8QQ, UK.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20080207/5dc95a55/attachment-0001.html>