defining stuff (was Re: On the impossibility ...)

[Rob Seaman]

Ed Shaya wrote:

> It was a poor choice to use GRBs as an example

An example is either typical or atypical.  Both provide hooks for  
exploring the solution space, as your further discussion nicely  
demonstrates.  VO facilities may aim for the typical 90%, but the  
atypical 10% must ultimately be accommodated.

On the other hand, GRB's are the bread & butter of transient astronomy  
currently (and one anticipates, for quite some time into the future).   
I would argue that any definition of same should be driven by our  
functional needs - not by an annual review style consensus, but by the  
information practitioners (perhaps outside the domain of astronomy)  
need to move astronomy forward to the next level of comprehension.

> I also would not underestimate the number of times a term has  
> multiple meanings.

Indeed!

> That is unacceptable for us.

Why - and by "us", to what use case(s) are you referring - and what  
are "we" (in this case, the architecture addressing all supported use  
cases) going to do about it?

- Rob