Vocabulary terms in MANGO

[Markus Demleitner]

Dear Laurent,

On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 06:21:26PM +0100, Laurent Michel via semantics wrote:
> > On 6 Nov 2024, at 15:00, Markus Demleitner via semantics <semantics at ivoa.net> wrote:
> > That would be a vocabulary of its own, right?  In this particular
> > case, it would be great if the descriptions (or something else)
> > discussed your concepts' relationships to what EPN-TAP has in its
> > description of the processing_level column (EPN-TAP2, CODMAC, PSA,
> > PDS3, PDF4, and Obscore levels).
>
> I’m not expert in vocabularies, but I guess that such a calibration
> vocabulary could include specific branches per domain (ObsCore,
> EPN-TAP…) and setup cross links between them.

Well, this would make sense if the *other* schemes were organised as
RDF resources.  You could then declare "their" concepts to be exactly
(or roughly) the same as yours machine-readably.  But since there are
few machines that *want* to read this kind of information, I think
there is little need to put work into doing this.

What I was thinking of was more: Make sure that we *could* write such
a mapping, i.e., that, to the extent possible, your concepts somehow
align with the other concepts.  Ideally, the descriptions would then
say something like "in PDS: 2 or 3".

> Let’s start with the three vocabularies I need for MANGO:
> - calibration levels
> - photometry measurements
> - sky region

For photometry measurements, let's make sure that whatever we do is
useful for PhotDM, too -- can we find a volunteer for that?

Sky regions would be types of sky regions, i.e., MOC vs. STC-S vs.
DALI shape?  Are you 100% sure that shouldn't be handled via DALI
types and xtypes on the values?  I know you've always tried to be
independent of VOTable in your DM efforts, but I'd really like to
avoid inventing schemes competing with DALI, and I'd much rather
teach xtypes and VOTable types to whatever other format you might
want to annotate than to invent a DALI alternative to denote geometry
types.

Calibration levels sounds the (technically) simplest of these
domains.  I'd suggest we should use that as pilot.

Thanks,

            Markus