Definitions (was something else)

[Brian Thomas]

On Thursday 07 February 2008 8:55:07 am Alasdair J G Gray wrote:
[snip]
> > Suggestion:
> >
> > Can we make the definitions optional?  ("zero or more", "0..*")
> At the moment, the definitions are optional, and I do not think this 
> will change. (Certainly it will not change in the skos standard.)
> 

	I have not been arguing that all terms must definitely have
	definitions (although it would be nice). Get as many in as are
	possible. This shouldn't hold up publication of an initial draft
	(or any draft). 

	The multiplicity should be 0 or 1. Multiple definitions seems 
	contrary to the whole process (which is to remove degeneracy
	of meaning). Each term/token should have only one meaning
	(could be broad, could be narrow in scope, but should not be 
	multiple orthogonal meanings).

	Add definitions as time (and agreement) allows.

> I also agree that it is not our place to add definitions to vocabularies 
> published by external sources, e.g. A&A keywords or even the AOIM. If 
> the authors/creators/publishers of these vocabularies make definitions 
> available for the terms then these should be included, otherwise they 
> should be left as just the label and the relationships.
> 
> The only vocabulary within this standardisation process for which we 
> should worry about definitions is the new IVOAT.

	Agreed.

> >
> > Can we instead collect a separate master list of numbered definitions 
> > that are linked to each entry, rather than embedded?
> >
> > In this way, the author(s) of a list can assert a definition and later 
> > users of the list can revise this via definitions that may already 
> > exist (and that may be shared with other lists).  Adding a new 
> > definition is trivial.  Stale definitions can be retired simply by 
> > replaced text in the master list with a link (just as real 
> > dictionaries might do, e.g., "see entry PLANTAIN" - in our case, "see 
> > entry 1234").
>
> I do not favour this approach. Since we are only needing definitions for 
> one vocabulary, these should be placed directly into the vocabulary.
> 

	Agree (Generally. If the IVOA/IAU ever hosts an astro-wiki or a definitions
	page, then perhaps its OK).

=brian