> and I forgot to add: what do you do if there are multiple columns which
> have the UCD you're looking for?
Is full automation critical? I can envisage where you want to know
whether a registered data source has relevant fields, but at some point
you will need to consult detailed information on the semantics of
columns to discover if a particlar catalogue is pertinent to the
specific research project. Is it a big deal that some natural
intelligence is brought to bear? The astronomer can judge whether the
match is adequate. The UCDs can help identify potential matches. [It
would be handy to be able to see the matches in order of likelihood
(expert system even) and then to be able to click on each to read
descriptions of the column, and then choose the appropriate matches.]
Surely for most projects there aren't many databases to work through to
identify matching columns. Most of the work is in the analysis after
merging/broadening of the catalogues.
Sorry if I'm missing the point. I've not had time today to read this
correspondence in detail, after some A/L.
> Glad to have been of service. You may at your option add a footnote
> to the effect that it comes from a curmudgeonly old sceptic who
> would have voted firmly against the adoption of agriculture on
> the grounds that it sounded far too complicated ever to work.
Long live vi (and EDT).
Malcolm
|