Question - History of ivoa onto of astronomical object types

[Francoise Genova]

My understanding is that the vocabularies fulfilled our needs, and that 
our tests of ontologies (CDS had done another one with a wider ontology 
perimeter before that one) showed that they are more costly to develop 
and maintain than vocabularies. The object type ontology was nice, 
allowing to display the relationship between the concepts, etc but the 
point was not to have a nice display.

Best
Francoise





Le 04/12/2021 à 08:21, Robert Rovetto a écrit :
> (resending due to sending error) Thanks for the replies so far. I'm 
> happy to understand more
>
> I'm curious about a couple of things that don't seem reflected in the 
> webpage for the ontology technical note...
> Does anyone know:
> - why it did not reach an application stage?
> - why the study or further work did not continue?
> - Did the ivoa ontology exploration proved to be insufficient, partly 
> so, or otherwise (and why)?
> - What caused the current effort (the current IVOA vocabularies), 
> rather than continuing with the ontology or a set of ontologies?
>
> I think it's valuable that there is a diversity of types of knowledge 
> organization systems, from controlled vocabularies to ontologies to 
> other systems, since each has pros and cons. Some can be used as their 
> counterparts as well.
> So I'm curious about any experiences developing that ontology, any 
> challenges, and any overall findings.
>
>
> On Friday, December 3, 2021, 04:26:38 AM EST, Markus Demleitner 
> <msdemlei at ari.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
>
>
> Robert,
>
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 07:45:29AM +0000, Robert Rovetto wrote:
> > Can anyone on the list who were original developers of that
> > ontology share the history of it?
>
> I suppose you're referring to
> https://ivoa.net/documents/Notes/AstrObjectOntology/. 
> <https://ivoa.net/documents/Notes/AstrObjectOntology/. >First, for
> orientation: This was a technology study that did not actually make
> it to any productive application (as far as I am aware). Our current
> effort, http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/object-type/, 
> <http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/object-type/, >is only loosely
> connected to that.  If I were to draw a provenance tree of the whole
> thing, this vocabulary would be quite a bit down a different branch.
>
> Having said that, almost all of the original authors are now retired
> or are working outside of science and are hence no longer reading
> this list.  If you'd like to collect some history on that particular
> effort, you might hence be better off trying to locate some of the
> authors using other channels and ask them directly.
>
>
>           -- Markus


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/semantics/attachments/20211206/ff9ddf40/attachment.html>