<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">To my knowledge most of the original
authors are still on the list. They can contact you if they wish.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Best regards</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Francoise</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 06/12/2021 à 23:34, Robert Rovetto a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:645874729.89147.1638830051828@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="ydpcec7b564yahoo-style-wrap"
style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;">
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I understand, thanks. Very
nice points, reiterating the value of different knowledge
organizations systems and approaches. <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">I'm wondering a couple of
things:<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">- Does anyone on the list
have interest in ontological aspects for the current
vocabularies? <br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">
<div>- Or more generally, anyone have interest in pursuing
other ontological aspects?<br>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span>- Or more
specifically, </span>anyone have interest in further
developing the <a
href="https://www.ivoa.net/documents/Notes/AstrObjectOntology/20100117/NOTE-AstrObjectOntology-1.3-20100117.html"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ivoa
astornomy ontology</a>?</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span>You mentioned the
original authors. Does anyone have their latest contact
information? Or if anyone is willing to put me in touch,
please let me know. (I've not found a couple of them)</span><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="yahoo_quoted_9483813041" class="yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div> On Monday, December 6, 2021, 03:28:44 AM EST, Markus
Demleitner <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de"><msdemlei@ari.uni-heidelberg.de></a> wrote: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Robert,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 07:21:48AM +0000, Robert Rovetto
wrote:<br clear="none">
> Does anyone know:- why it did not reach an application
stage?<br clear="none">
> - why the study or further work did not continue? <br
clear="none">
> - Did the ivoa ontology exploration proved to be
insufficient,<br clear="none">
> partly so, or otherwise (and why)?<br clear="none">
> - What caused the current effort (the current IVOA
vocabularies),<br clear="none">
> rather than continuing with the ontology or a set of
ontologies?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
At least on this last question I can give my personal view.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Historically, much earlier than the object types came
various efforts<br clear="none">
to produce a thesaurus in astronomy, and the original
activities of<br clear="none">
the semantics WG had a significant focus there. This
significantly<br clear="none">
informed Vocabularies version 1<br clear="none">
(<a shape="rect"
href="http://ivoa.net/Documents/cover/Vocabularies-20091007.html"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://ivoa.net/Documents/cover/Vocabularies-20091007.html</a>),<br
clear="none">
published in 2009 and essentially only dealing with SKOS.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Vocabularies 1 did not (and Vocabularies 2 does not) claim
to lock<br clear="none">
down the applications for semantic technologies to whatever
it lists,<br clear="none">
and thus when for Datalink's semantics column (WD from 2013:<br
clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="http://ivoa.net/documents/DataLink/20131022/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://ivoa.net/documents/DataLink/20131022/</a>)
properties were more<br clear="none">
appropriate than SKOS' rather loose concepts, and we wanted<br
clear="none">
"naturally" transitive relationships, we went for RDFS
instead.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Further applications of this formalism came up, first in<br
clear="none">
VOResource 1.1 (most importantly, relationships between VO
resources;<br clear="none">
think "data collections and services giving access to
them"),<br clear="none">
replacing flat word lists in XML schema files. But we found
that the<br clear="none">
somewhat matter-of-factly "here's some RDF" that was
introduced with<br clear="none">
the datalink vocabulary left a few things to be desired.<br
clear="none">
<br clear="none">
First, client authors needed guidance on how to consume the
semantic<br clear="none">
resources. And we needed clear rules for how to add terms
to the<br clear="none">
vocabularies. There had been several requests for amending
the<br clear="none">
datalink vocabulary since something like 2014, and nobody
was really<br clear="none">
sure who should deal with them, and how. Well: that is how<br
clear="none">
Vocabularies 2 came to happen.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
As to the question on why there is not a single ontology:
Well, I<br clear="none">
frankly do not see a use case where it would help having
concepts<br clear="none">
from datalink ("what sort of information does this link give
on<br clear="none">
dataset?") together with reference frames ("what sort of
celestial or<br clear="none">
perhaps planetary grid was used?") together with messenger
types<br clear="none">
("what sort of particle communicated the signal reported
here?").<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
On the other hand, keeping them separate makes a few things
quite a<br clear="none">
bit simpler, for instance, because the resources often are
trivially<br clear="none">
compact (just a few kilobytes), and because a standard can
say<br clear="none">
relatively simple things like "the refposition attribute
takes its<br clear="none">
values from the identifiers of the<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/refposition "
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.ivoa.net/rdf/refposition
</a>IVOA vocabulary"; in a unified<br clear="none">
ontology, this would, for all I can see, take quite a bit
more effort<br clear="none">
overall, in particular as regards simple presentation
accessible to<br clear="none">
plain web browsers.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Does this help a bit?
<div class="yqt9762525247" id="yqtfd63920"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
-- Markus<br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>