[Draft] Vocabularise UCDs #31
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a proposal for how UCD words could be represented as a "normal" IVOA vocabulary. The syntax codes are given as extra triples with a new ivoasem property; in HTML, this is not formatted in an ideal way, but I guess that would easily be fixed.
That there is no structure in this list is something I don't particularly like. True, the way UCDs are built does not exactly lend itself to the is-a relationships that we have in RDF class vocabularies. Is phys.size a phys? Is phys.size.diameter a phys.size?
I am hard pressed to give a heart-felt "yes" in either case, but I don't see a clear "no" either. Perhaps we should identify cases that are clearer in either direction and see whether it makes sense to organise this into a tree.