New UCDs for VOEvent please

[Frederic V. "Rick" Hessman]

On 29 Apr 2005, at 8:51 pm, Ed Shaya wrote:

> But we can also be keeping another eye on the longer time scale where  
> we want to be able to put data in machine understandable terms so that  
> applications can do the most possible on our behalf.  This requires  
> something a bit more sophisticated than just a simple class hierarchy  
> of terms.  An ontology would be more complete but probably not even an  
> order of magnitude (factor 10) more than the UCD is now.  In fact,  
> given the requests and requirements to augment UCDs,  with time, the  
> UCD will probably grow to the size of an ontology anyway.   So, it is  
> probably wise to start doing some thinking in terms of the formal OWL  
> standard now. What we do with the ontology can vary greatly.
> 1.  Use it as a string identifier, exactly as UCDs are.  The advantage  
> is that one can read the Ontology at that point to get more context  
> for the meaning of the term.
> 2.  Use it as one more model builder for developing schemas.  This is  
> like UML but more in tune with knowledge/information structures.  I  
> think this is what Mathew had in mind.
> 3. Use it to test completeness and consistency of terms.  This would  
> not be on the fly, but rather as one adds new terms one can see  
> whether it is clashing with other terms and Venn diagrams let you see  
> something about completeness.  This then makes it more acceptable for  
> groups to be adding terms into their namespace without going to the VO  
> heads or the IAU.
> 4. One can use it as the defining structure of all information being  
> exchanged.  Sounds daring but in fact several other related science  
> fields are preparing to do just that, including space physics.
> 5. One can use it to reason out pathways to converting, pipelining,  
> and analysing data.  It should be possible to automatically find the  
> transformation and queries needed to satisfy an arbitrary  stated goal  
> or request.   Our group at UMD has an NASA/AISRP grant to figure out  
> the basics of how this might be done using OWL.

Ummm.... maybe my googling didn't go quite as far or I'm missing  
something: the "ontology" I found was a "low-level" (no - that sounds  
too negative - let's say "very fundamental") means of describing  
scientific quantities - nothing particularly "astronomical" about it.    
If this is as far as anyone has gotten, then I vote for a mid-term  
temporary solution - what I've called "VOThings" - which someone else  
can turn into a full astronomical ontology in the future.  Thus,

	- Small, multiple, overlapping, incompatible lists within different  
schemata will be an unnecessary pain, so we need a minimal  
common-ground list.

	- A formal development of a real astronomical ontology will take many  
years and we can't wait that long.

	- We should resist the temptation to make VOThings "complete" since it  
won't ever be such and we'd waste time in trying.  Maybe having such a  
terrible name will be a good thing - let's get it over quickly knowing  
that some day somebody else will get it right.

Rick

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
------------------------
Dr. Frederic V. Hessman      Hessman at Astro.physik.Uni-Goettingen.DE
Universitaets-Sternwarte     Tel.  +49-551-39-5052
Geismarlandstr. 11                Fax +49-551-39-5043
37083 Goettingen                 http://www.uni-sw.gwdg.de/~hessman
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-------------------------
MONET: a MOnitoring NEtwork of Telescopes
http://monet.uni-goettingen.de
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
-------------------------