utype questions

[Matthew Graham]

Hi Doug,

So what is wrong with having a static URI that points a SKOS resource  
that enumerates the different contents - this can be editted as needed  
and as open-ended as you want but it also have a fixed URI, is  
(de)referencable and allows for look-ups to see how the same term is  
referenced in different dialects.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

On Jun 29, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Doug Tody wrote:

> Hi Frederic -
>
> Maybe I am not understanding your question, but semantic inference is
> a completely different issue from UTYPE.  We are dealing with data
> models here, not vocabularies.  We do not want to have to infer the
> field of a data model.  We just need simple static labels, defined
> within the context of a single (versioned!) model, to allow model
> attributes to be manipulated in a representation-independent fashion.
>
> Now if our data model contains an attribute (UTYPE) such as  
> Target.Class
> to specify the class of astronomical object observed, we do need
> semantic inference to do useful things with the value of this  
> attribute.
> The UTYPE "Target.Class" is completely defined by the data model,
> but the contents are an open-ended vocabulary with the problem of
> multiple dialects and so on.
>
> 	- Doug
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Frederic Hessman wrote:
>
>> Sorry to dig back into the utype question, but why isn't the use of  
>> multiple, translatable vocabularies a la SKOS the ideal (indeed  
>> only) solution?  Don't want user readability, don't want to enforce  
>> a single usage, don't need an ontology, don't want to restrict  
>> mixing and matching as long as I can match what's been mixed, just  
>> need a good label.   Or am I being naive and/or single-minded?
>>
>> Rick
>>
>