Multiple definitions

[Ed Shaya]

Rick,

Wouldn't it work this way if we allow altLabels+prefLabels to be 
non-unique?  So for this case,
comet_coma would have id="comet_coma", prefLable="coma of comet" and 
altLabel="coma".
But the distortion coma would have id="coma", prefLabel="coma 
distortion",  altLabel="coma".
The point is to have unique terms for unique definitions.
This is probably what you meant.  Yes?

Ed

Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> />/
> />> I also would not underestimate the number of times a term has /
> />> multiple meanings./
> />/
> /> Indeed!/
> />/
> />> That is unacceptable for us./
>
> Multiple definitions may be cumbersome, but they are reality.   I 
> would rather have too many than too few to choose from.   Here's my 
> best attempt at a "scenario" to show that computers should like 
> multiple definitions:
>
> VO-app:  "What would you like to observe today?"
> Astronomer: "The comet from yesterday's APOD."
> (pause to look for an IVOA vocabulary which explains what "APOD" means)
> VO-app: "OK"
> (pause to find an HTN telescope)
> VO-app: "The camera's FOV is only 10 arcminutes: what part of the 
> object would you like to observe first?"
> Astronomer: "Nucleus."
> VO-app: "Completed, downloaded and displayed in your VO-viewer.   Next 
> target?"
> Astronomer: "Tail."
> VO-app: "Completed, downloaded and displayed in your VO-viewer.   Next 
> target?"
> Astronomer: "Coma."
> VO-app: "Slewing to Abell 1656..."
>
>
>
> Rick