Subject: classification scheme

From: [email-masked] (anton koekemoer)
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 00:22:41 EST

hi Don,

	Here's a suggestion concerning the category codes - how about a file
summarising the definition of each category code? There are some fine
distinctions, often semantic, but such a guide might at least help clarify
things a bit. I'm currently playing with an 'mssso' format based on using
yp_protoname.html and I'm finding a few difficulties reconciling this
with my previous classifications. For example, is the AAO (Epping) an
institute, a department, an observatory or a telescope?... Currently it's
listed as 'optical' (telescope?) which I find somewhat hazy, since it would
be in the same category as AAT yet they serve quite different purposes. On
some lists it is useful to have them next to each other, but on others they
should be in separate categories.

	How about this:

1. Keep the current classification of optical, radio, space, solar but
recognise that these are subsets of the classification 'telescope' defined as:

   Telescope: where actual observing is done. Permanent staff are mostly
   technical and/or support, observers are generally temporary and come from
   other cities/countries.

2. Add the above classification subsets to departments as well. Define
departments/institutes as:

   Departments and Institutes: where academic/research staff are permanently
   located. May or may not administer telescopes, either on-site or remotely.

(Yet another subclassification - departments are affiliated with universities,
while institutes are not? ie split into dept / inst. I'm not sure if this one
would be useful.)

Here would be some examples of classification under the above scheme:

MSSSO:	dept optical
SSO:	telescope optical

ATNF:	inst radio
ATCA:	telescope tadio
Mopra:	telescope radio

AAO:	inst optical
AAT:	telescope optical

NRAO (Charlottesville):	inst radio
VLA:	telescope radio

etc...

This would give somewhat more freedom, ie all the optical places could still
be lumped together, or they could be split into departments / telescopes. If
an institution administers both optical and radio telescopes (rare) perhaps
they could both be listed, with the more dominant one (eg optical) first:
<place>: dept optical radio

The above is not meant as a concrete example, rather just as a sort of starting
point for thinking more carefully about the classification scheme. I don't know
if it is in fact worth spending time on since there will always be grey areas
no matter how we define things - what's important is to reduce them to only a
handful. But it would at least be useful to define the current classifications,
perhaps adding some more freedom to them.

						cheers,
						 - anton.

---

From: dwells (Don Wells)
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 21:38:04 EST

anton koekemoer writes:
 > things a bit. 

Good idea. You sound like you are volunteering!

The codes which are currently in the file were not planned, and I put
no great thought into their choice or their definition. I simply
wanted to reproduce the existing lists, and putting codes in the file
enabled me to do that.  As I did so I was quite aware of the
ambiguities. I made decisions one by one as I edited the file.  Many
of the decisions were made quickly, as snap judgements. It is certain
that I made mistakes.  I noticed that many of the resources could and
should be classified into more than one category, and so I inserted
multiple codes in many of the records. As a result, you will find the
same record appearing in more than one of my subject-oriented pages. I
have been planning to regard the first code in a list as the 'primary'
classification, and to produce a file sorted on primary_code_plus_name.

 > .., is the AAO (Epping) an
 > institute, a department, an observatory or a telescope?... 

I consider it to be an optical-oriented institute, so I agree with
your proposed codes (see below).

 > 1. Keep the current classification of optical, radio, space, solar..
 > .. subsets of the classification 'telescope' ..

Sure. We could invent a code 'telescope' and make it the primary code
for pages that are associated with actual telescopes. The
optical/radio/space... codes could be secondary codes.

 > 2. Add the above classification subsets to departments as well...
 >    Departments and Institutes: where academic/research staff are..

Reasonable. I believe that you will find instances in the current
database which already fit these rules (e.g., Utrecht and [probably]
Calgary). 

 > MSSSO: dept optical > SSO: telescope optical > ATNF: inst radio >
    ATCA: telescope tadio > Mopra: telescope radio > AAO: inst optical >
    AAT: telescope optical > NRAO (Charlottesville): inst radio > VLA:
    telescope radio > etc...

These multiple-code classifications strike me as reasonable, proper
and useful. In fact, I have -- to some extent -- already applied these
rules in an informal fashion.

 > The above is.. a.. starting > point for thinking.. about the
 > classification scheme.. there will always be grey areas
 > no matter how we define things.. it would.. be useful to define the
 > current classifications.. 

I agree. I would welcome a URL to page defining the codes and their
usage. If you want to change the names of any of the codes, say so.
Now is a good time for such a change, because there is still only one
working copy of the master database.

-Don