Draft draft 0.04

[Alasdair J G Gray]

Rob Seaman wrote:
>> I've put a vocabularies-0.04 at 
>> <http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/ivoa/vocabularies>, with the 
>> corresponding issues list at 
>> <http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/norman/ivoa/vocabularies/issues>. 
>>  The latter has been extended by a couple of issues that seemed to 
>> arise in the last few days, and has the first two issues 
>> [masterformat-1] and [distformat-2] marked as provisionally resolved.
[snip]
> Today's brouhaha was about definitions.  The Turtle #spiralGalaxy 
> example from v0.04 has:
>
> skos:definition """A galaxy having a spiral structure."""@en;
>
> This is a good example itself of my point about multiple definitions. 
>  The brouhaha was about one meaning of the word "definition" - an 
> extended description, or as Marcus Aurelius says:
>
> / //"Ask yourself, what is this thing in itself, by its own special/
> / //constitution? What is it in substance, and in form, and in matter?
> // //What is its function in the world? For how long does it subsist?"/
>
> (Also Hannibal Lector to Agent Starling in /Silence of the Lambs/.)
>
> The meaning in SKOS, however, is more like "a brief description to 
> distinguish one token from another".
>
> To be blunt, I don't give a kangaroo rat's ass about the latter issue. 
>  (NB - a "kangaroo rat" is neither a "kangaroo", nor a "rat".)  I find 
> a definition that merely restates the obvious (a #spiralGalaxy is a 
> spiral galaxy) to be without utility - but perhaps others disagree. 
>  (Also, isn't distinguishing terms the point of mappings like 
> narrower, broader and related?)
As someone with no background in astronomy, I find that I do not 
understand a lot of the labels, this is to be expected. However, one of 
the use cases we are trying to satisfy is that an astronomer who 
specialises in one field can understand the specific terms used in 
another field. So, for the general terms like planet, satellite, spiral 
galaxies, it does seem a bit pointless having a definition that explains 
these terms, however for more specific terms it would be essential for 
cross field understanding and therefore all terms should have 
definitions for good practice.

[snip]

I have just read the document and will add some detailed comments below. 
I am happy to go ahead and perform both Rob's suggestions and my own.
>
> Specific comments:
>
> Title: ok
>
> version: bump it up to something like 0.94 or nobody will take it 
> seriously
>
> authors; good job guys!
>
> editors: we need to identify these ASAP, the document doesn't need 
> much work IMHO
>
> Abstract: good and to the point
>
> Status: let's promote this to a public working draft ASAP
>
> TOC: didn't verify
>
> Intro:  excellent analysis of the problem
>
> 1.1: ok
>
> 1.2:
>
> Replace "<what/> element" with "<Why/> and <What/> elements".
>
> Replace "Gamma Ray Burst" with "gamma-ray burst".  Need to identify 
> and follow a general policy for terminology, especially in a document 
> about vocabularies :-)
>
> Delete the word "modishly".  No need to be snarky about folksonomies.
>
> Delete ", with its systematising instincts, and aware of the benefits 
> of standardisation,"
>
> Replace "supernova1a" with " type 1a supernova".
>
> BTW, how are plurals handled in SKOS?  Meaning - I understand we're 
> supposed to pick a coherent naming scheme, either plural or singular, 
> but is there some way to recognize SNe as referring to multiple SN? 
>  Or is my question ill-posed?
>
> SIMBAD is sometimes SIMBAD and sometimes Simbad.  Which is it?
>
> 1.3: ok
>
> 2: good
Need to rewrite the introductory paragraph as it claims this section 
introduces something and then points to 3.2.
>
> 2.1:
>
> Delete "NOTE: The purpose..." or perhaps expand the following description.
>
> I don't think "a vocabulary (SKOS or otherwise)..." needs to be bolded.
>
> 2.2:
>
> Shouldn't be shy about announcing a preferred format (XML versus Turtle).
>
> Further discussion about definitions:
>
> A SKOS entry may contain a "definition for the concept, where one 
> exists in the original vocabulary".  This notion permits the 
> many-to-many mapping we need.  A particular vocabulary may include the 
> limited "I am a spiral galaxy" type of definition.  A separate 
> vocabulary may include a concept with a more fleshed out definition, 
> perhaps including (or simply plagiarizing) links covering all of what 
> astronomical science has to say about the birth, life and death of 
> spiral galaxies.  Cross-linking the concepts provides enough slack to 
> say whatever one wants.
>
> 2.3:
This section needs a complete rewrite to reflect the changes to the skos 
standard.
>
> I remain a bit unclear about where the equivalences are going to live. 
>  What document will contain the example "iau93:#SPIRALGALAXY 
> map:exactMatch ivoat:#spiralGalaxy"?  I suggest the need for some 
> document external to both iau93 and ivoat to make this equivalence. 
>  How are multiway equivalences conveyed?
These would be in a separate document from the skos vocabulary meaning 
that users can pick and choose which sets of mappings to use. When I 
rewrite this section I will expand the discussion. We also now have a 
first mapping file relating the terms in the A&A keywords to the AOIM. I 
feel that a description of this should be added to section 4 and a copy 
included in the appendices.
>
> 3: ok
What does the normative mean in the title? What purpose does it serve?
> 3.1: ok
>
> 3.2: 
>
> #5 - typo "defintions" (saw a similar typo somewhere else in the document)
>
> #8 - Again, does the publisher of iau93 map to ivoat, or does ivoat 
> map to iau93, or both, or one or more third parties?
This needs more explanation in the document. Both parties could publish 
mappings along with anyone else who decides to create a set of mappings. 
Of course, the mappings themselves all have inverses, so if you have a 
mapping from vocabulary A to vocabulary B then you automatically have 
one from vocabulary B to vocabulary A.
>
> 4: ok (meaning looks like you guys did a vast amount of work)
We claim that all of the vocabularies are normative versions except for 
the IAU. This is not correct by my understanding. The normative version 
of each vocabulary is surely the version published by the vocabularies 
creator, e.g. the publisher of the A&A journal or the IVOA document that 
defines the AOIM. We are merely providing skos versions of these 
existing vocabularies.

4.2 There are some alternative labels and scope notes.

4.3: There are alternative labels used to capture the taxonomical 
number. We need to keep an eye on the skos standard here as there is the 
possibility that notations will be added (Issue 79 
<http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/79>).

4.4: The IAU uses BT (broader term), NT, and RT rather than BF, NF, and RF.

4.6: How is the IVOAT going to be published? Is it time that we started 
preparing a document for its publication so that we can reference it 
here as an early version?
> Appendices: ok
Is it time that we added in the skos versions of the example vocabularies?
>
> Bibliography:
>
> If the UCD authors are listed, so should the VOEvent authors.
>
> Issues doc:  Good job!  Seem to be well in hand.
>
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/20080208/31aecd21/attachment-0001.html>