On 12/5/2013 4:35 AM, Alex Shkotin wrote:
> we have a lot of exciting and subtle examples of definitions and
> axiomatic theories in math, but what about natural sciences and
> technologies (NSaT)? (01)
I have found the NASA documents to be useful references for data
formats used in science and technology. That's not quite the same
as the issues about defining terms, but it's helpful. (02)
See the site for PDS data -- that's for Planetary Data Systems, for
which NASA has huge volumes of data. They use the latest ISO and IEEE
standards for representing the data. And their examples are easier
to read (and download for free) than the official standards. (03)
Following is the web site: (04)
http://pds.nasa.gov/pds4/doc/ (05)
Their concepts document has a glossary of terms, many of which would be
generally useful for ontologies: (06)
http://pds.nasa.gov/pds4/doc/concepts/Concepts_130507_v1.pdf (07)
Their Data Provider's Handbook is a summary of the many standards
that are used: (08)
http://pds.nasa.gov/pds4/doc/dph/current/PDS4_DataProvidersHandbook_20130507.pdf (09)
For some idea of the complexity, the "abridged" version of their
data dictionary takes 330 pages: (010)
http://pds.nasa.gov/pds4/doc/dd/current/pds4datadictionary_abridged_1000.pdf (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (013)
|