comments on UAT Beta_v2
24 views
Skip to first unread message
Heinz Andernach
Sep 4, 2013, 10:15:00 PM9/4/13
to uat-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Katie,
your email with the comments by Bas Braams reminded me that I had scribbled
comments on my printout of the UAT_Beta_v2 which I had downloaded on July 8, 2013
but never made it to write them down in an email. Here they go.
I'm afraid that it appears to me that V2 of the UAT has never been
revised by a researcher attentively. I can't claim that I've looked
at all details, but concentrated on my area (galaxies, radio sources,
and large-scale structure) in addition to a few obvious general topics.
This version of the UAT needs a great deal of overhaul, homogenization,
and straightening out of logical errors. The homogenization e.g. would
avoid that sometimes words are used in singular, sometimes in plural...
I think the index pages for the major (large-volume) astronomical
textbooks could be of great help in this task. Looking forward to further
feedback.
Regards,
Heinz Andernach
Depto. de Astronomia, Univ. Guanajuato tel: +52-473-732-9548 or 732-9607 (ext. 2505)
Apartado Postal 144 FAX: +52-473-732-0253
Guanajuato, C.P. 36000, GTO, Mexico Email: he...@astro.ugto.mx
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers" "Hydroxyl masers"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers" "Silicon monoxide masers"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers" "Water masers"
You'll want to include Megamasers
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Emission line galaxies" "Markarian galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Emission line galaxies" "Seyfert nuclei"
Why galaxies vs. nuclei ...? Better "Seyfert galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Double quasars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Individual quasars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Quasar-galaxy pairs"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Radio quiet quasars"
need to add "Radio loud quasars" The term quasars was reserved for such radio-loud objects
only in the early days (til ~1970), after which lots of radio-quiet quasars were found.
Today both are called quasars, but then the two types should be distinguished and mentioned.
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "X-ray quasars"
You may as well add "Radio-loud Quasar" and "Radio-quiet Quasar", and "Broad-Absorption line Quasar" (BALQSO)
to these...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Emission line galaxies" "Liner galaxies"
"Liner" is an acronym for "Low-Ionization Narrow Emission Line Region"
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-ionization_nuclear_emission-line_region )
and should thus be typed in upper case letters only, although relaxed authors often
forget about this...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Emission line galaxies" "Markarian galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Emission line galaxies" "Seyfert nuclei"
same comment as above... why nuclei in the 2nd case vs. galaxies in the 1st case?
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Haro galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "LINEAR galaxies"
I believe the latter is a typo and should read "LINER galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "EP galaxies"
Never heard about EP galaxies... should be explained. I suspect that it is E_pec for
"peculiar E galaxy" ?
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Fanaroff-Riley radio galaxies"
This is INCORRECT ! Fanaroff & Riley (1974) proposed a classification of the radio
morphology of radio galaxies (i.e. purely based on the shape of the radio emission. According
to this classification there are "Fanaroff-Riley I radio galaxies" and "Fanaroff-Riley II radio galaxies",
also known as "FR I" and "FR II" type radio galaxies. There are also many radio galaxies
with morphologies that don't fit into either class, sometimes called FRI/II or
"hybrid" cases...
There are also so-called "HYMOR" radio galaxies, meaning hybrid morphology: one side of the radio
emission is FR I type, the opposite side is FR II type.
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Head-tail galaxies"
This is again nonsense... (sorry). There is no such thing as a "Head-tail galaxy" [why not singular,
by the way?]. There are only "Head-tail radio galaxies", since the "head-tail" morphology
is seen only in the radio emission. Citing from 2011PASA...28..215Norris et al:
"Head tail, wide-angle tail (WAT), and narrow-angle tail [RADIO] galaxies (collectively named
`tailed radio galaxies') are believed to represent radio-loud AGNs in which the jets are distorted
by the intra-cluster medium." (Note that as a coauthor of the paper I had to argue with the
first author to insert the word RADIO, but he didn't do it in the indicated case... )
Thus, a more complete set of entries of the UAT could be:
"Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Tailed radio galaxies"
"Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Tailed radio galaxies" "Wide-angle tail radio galaxies"
"Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Tailed radio galaxies" "Narrow-angle tail radio galaxies"
and in the latter three entries the term "Tailed radio galaxies" is perfectly synonymous to
"Head-tail radio galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Bipolar galaxies"
I don't think this is an accepted term... checking wikepedia I found it
in one article (1992RvMA....5..200Notni P.), which, according to ADS, doesn't have a single citation...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Compact galaxies"
this could have the following sublevels: "Blue Compact galaxies" and "Blue Compact dwarfs"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Andromeda Galaxy"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Triangulum Galaxy"
This type of item could be completed with many such names, like e.g. "Whirlpool Galaxy"...
NED and Simbad probably have dozens of them...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Barred spiral galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Barred spiral galaxies" "B galaxies"
Not sure whether "B galaxies" should be included... the B is just used within a classification
system as an additional letter to indicate the presence of a bar in a galaxy
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies" "Dwarf elliptical galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies" "Dwarf spheroidal galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies" "Dwarf irregular galaxies"
"Ultracompact dwarf" should be added as another flavor of these
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Elliptical galaxies" "E galaxies" "EP galaxies"
same comment as above... probably E_pec for "peculiar elliptical galaxy"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Field galaxies"
If this term is kept, I'll fight for the "Cluster (member) galaxies" .... ;-)
Also, I don't see "polar ring galaxies" being mentioned.
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Galaxy components" "Galactic halos" "Stellar rings"
Not sure whether "Stellar rings" are accepted at all, but don't they exist also in the
Galactic disk, or only in the halo ?
> "Astronomical objects" "Interstellar medium" "Interstellar clouds" "H I regions" "HI line"
the "HI line" is not an "Astronomical object"
> "Astronomical objects" "Interstellar medium" "Interstellar jets"
Not sure what that is...
> "Astronomical objects" "Interstellar medium" "Tidal tails"
"Tidal tails" should, at the very least, also be mentioned under "Galaxy components"
> "Astronomical objects" "Nebulae" "H I regions" "HI line"
the "HI line" is not an "Astronomical object"
> "Astronomical objects" "Nebulae" "Emission nebulae" "H II regions" "Compact H II region"
there are also "Ultracompact H II regions" (UCHII)
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Earth (planet)"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Mars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Mercury"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Venus"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Jupiter"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Neptune"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Saturn"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Uranus"
These should better ONLY go under "Solar system" (where they already are)
> "Astronomical objects" "Solar system" "Asteroid belt"
"Asteroids" are already mentioned before, but would fit in here as well.
> "Astronomical objects" "Solar system" "Planetary rings" "Ansae"
"Spokes" in planetary rings could be included here.
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Charged black holes" "Reissner?ÛÒNordstr̦m black holes"
avoid non-ASCII symbols like umlauts.
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Stellar mass black holes"
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Supermassive black holes"
recently a search for "intermediate-mass black holes" has become very popular...
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Faint stars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Faint stars" "Faint blue stars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Faint stars" "Faint blue stars" "Blue stragglers"
We know that among the "Faint blue stars" (e.g. from the Luyten, PHL or Ton catalogs)
many are actually cuasars... so they should be put under a different categories
than just "Stars"... e.g. "Starlike objects" or some such.
> "Celestial mechanics" "Gravitation" "Gravitational lensing"
curious... I never felt that "Gravitational lensing" was part of "Celestial mechanics", but rather
"General Relativity"
> "Celestial mechanics" "Gravitation" "Gravitational lensing" "Luminous arcs"
these could be mentioned also under "Astronomical objects", as well as "Gravitational Lenses",
but a clear distinction should be made between "Lenses" (the objects that cause the effect
in the line of sight) and "Gravitationally Lensed Objects" [the ones that are far behind the lens
and appear distorted. In the literature the two are used sinonymously, which the should NOT
be!
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources"
I don't see this relation... like many other that were put under "Cosmology"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Compact radiation sources"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Extended sources"
why not "Extended radiation sources" as in the first line above? Anyway, what's
the relation with "Cosmology" ?
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Gamma-ray sources"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Gamma-ray sources" "Soft gamma ray repeaters"
there are many more subtypes or classes of gamma-ray sources, e.g. (taken
from 2012ApJS..199...31Nolan P.L. et al.: 2FGL catalog) :
Table 6. LAT 2FGL Source Classes
Description Identified Associated
Designator Number Designator Number
----+----1----+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+----6----+---
Pulsar, identified by pulsations PSR 83 - -
Pulsar, no pulsations seen in LAT yet ... psr 25
Pulsar wind nebula PWN 3 pwn 0
Supernova remnant SNR 6 snr 4
Supernova remnant/pulsar wind nebula ... # 58
Globular cluster GLC 0 glc 11
High-mass binary HMB 4 hmb 0
Nova NOV 1 nov 0
BL Lac object type of blazar BZB 7 bzb 429
FSRQ type of blazar BZQ 17 bzq 353
Non-blazar active galaxy AGN 1 agn 10
Radio galaxy RDG 2 rdg 10
Seyfert galaxy SEY 1 sey 5
Active galaxy of uncertain type AGU 0 agu 257
Normal galaxy (or part) GAL 2 gal 4
Starburst galaxy SBG 0 sbg 4
Class uncertain - - - 1
Unassociated - - - 575
Total - 127 1746
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Non-thermal radiation sources"
why not also "Thermal radiation sources" ?
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Discrete radio sources"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Extragalactic radio sources"
why not also "Galactic radio sources" (the ones which pertain to OUR Galaxy) ?
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio continuum emission"
I disagree with this order or logic.... "Radio continuum emission" is what we receive
from "Radio sources", but not a sublevel of it...
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio stars"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio jets"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio jets" "Polar jets"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio jets" "Relativistic jets"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio lobes"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio plumes"
"Radio Hot Spots" and "Radio cores" may be added to this list.
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "X-ray sources" "Diffuse x-ray background"
This is a matter of debate... I would reverse the order of the last two items:
"Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Diffuse x-ray background" "X-ray sources"
since the background emission can in fact be resolved into individual sources
> "Cosmology" "Astrophysical dust processes"
> "Cosmology" "Astrophysical dust processes" "Interstellar dust processes"
Just repeating... why is this under "Cosmology" and not something like "Radiation Processes" ?
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology" "Astronomical epochs"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology" "Astronomical epochs" "Besselian epoch"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology" "Astronomical epochs" "Julian epoch"
The first two lines are OK, but the last two confuse the terms "Epoch" and
"Equinox" ... there is no such thing as the "Besselian epoch" nor "Julian epoch",
these are equinoxes, but half of the astronomical literature confuses the two.
Equinox is the nominal "epoch" for the definition of an equatorial coordinate
system, while "epoch" is the date of an observation or the date when a moving
object can be found at a certain position (expressed in equatorial coordinates
of a certain equinox... where epoch and equinox are independent dates ... and concepts !
These last two lines should be moved to "Positional Astronomy"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmological models" "Inflationary universe"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmological models" "Lemaitre universe"
I've also seen "Loitering Universe" and "Coasting Universe", a "Critical Universe",
"decelerating Universe", "Eddington's antibang Universe" ... and probably many more.
> "Cosmology" "Mass transfer" "Mass exchange"
> "Cosmology" "Mass transfer" "Stellar mass loss"
> "Cosmology" "Mass transfer" "Stellar mass loss" "Plasma jets"
Here again, I wonder why this comes under "Cosmology" ?
> "Cosmology" "Steady-state theory"
> "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution"
> "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution" "Asymptotic giant branch"
again... why all this under "Cosmology" ?
> "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution" "Kelvin?ÛÒHelmholtz timescale"
don't use non-ASCII characters
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Armillary spheres"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Astronomical sextants"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Orreries"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Photoheliographs"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Ptolemy stones"
why not also include "Stone Circles" here, like the one's in Britain ?
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Optical telescopes" "Catadioptric telescopes" "Schmidt cameras"
the "Schmidt cameras" appears to be a detector, not a type of telescope...?
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Optical telescopes" "Reflecting telescopes" "Cassegrain telescopes" "Ritchey?ÛÒChrÌ©tien telescopes"
don't use non-ASCII characters
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radar telescopes"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers"
if you include the above, I'll fight for inclusion of
"Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Single-dish antennas"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Heterodyne receivers"
There are many more other types of receivers.
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Long baseline interferometers"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very long baseline interferometers"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very long baseline interferometers" "Very Large Array"
NO, the "Very Large Array" is NOT one of the "Very long baseline interferometers"
It should be separate like:
"Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very Large Array"
and there many, many more... e.g. the "Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope",
the "Ryle Telescope", the "Very Small Array", the "Molonglo Cross", the "Australia Telescope Compact Array" ...
you want all of them ...?
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Telescope mounts" "Altazimuth mounts"
perhaps better "Alt-azimuth mounts" (for altitude-azimuth ...)
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Very Large Telescope"
This one (the VLT) should go under
"Equipment and apparatus" "Optical Telescopes"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras" "Cloud monitors"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Baker-Nunn cameras"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Schmidt cameras"
should read "Schmidt telescopes"... the camera is the detector part of a telescope
One should add "Liquid Mirror Telescopes"
> "Galactic physics" "Galactic spurs"
The "North Polar Spur" is one of them...
The Galactic Radio Loops should also be mentioned (perhaps under "Galactic Radio Continuum Emission")
> "Galactic physics" "Galaxy kinematics" "Galactic anticenters"
I would think there only ONE "Galactic anticenter", ... this concept depends
on the location of an observer inside a Galaxy... and for the moment we're the
only known civilization in the Universe that could have defined a direction
opposite to OUR Galactic center... it makes no sense (for the moment) to define
this for another galaxy.
> "Galactic physics" "Galaxy kinematics" "Galactic equators"
> "Galactic physics" "Galaxy kinematics" "Galactic planes"
I would tend to make the same comment as above for the above two terms...
> "Lunar physics" "Selenology" "Lunar rills"
This should read "Rilles" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rille). It is
based on the German word "Rille" (groove), therefore the "e" in the plural "rilles".
> "Methods and techniques" "Gas-to-dust ratio"
why not also "mass-to-light ratio", very common in extragalactic astronomy to
estimate the amount of dark matter present in galaxies and clusters
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Astrometry"
much of what is listed under this item, actually corresponds to "Photometry"
Example:
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Astrometry" "Bolometric correction"
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Astrometry" "Standard stars" "Photometric standard stars"
well, there are "Standard stars" for "Astrometry" and for "Photometry"
The UAT is confusing the two.
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Photometry" "CCD photometry" "Medium band photometry" "Str̦mgren photometric system"
the UAT lists a lot of different "photometries" like "Sloan photometry", "Kron-Cousins photometry",
etc, but they could all be better called "XYZ photometric system"
> "Observational astronomy" "Magnitude" "Apparent magnitude"
> "Observational astronomy" "Magnitude" "Apparent magnitude" "B magnitude"
> "Observational astronomy" "Magnitude" "Apparent magnitude" "H magnitude"
There are many more such bands... e.g. the SDSS u', g', r', i' and z' bands are not mentioned
> "Positional astronomy" "Astronomical location" "Location behind"
> "Positional astronomy" "Astronomical location" "Location between"
> "Positional astronomy" "Astronomical location" "Location in front"
I'm not sure about the usefulness of the above terms.
> "Positional astronomy" "Celestial coordinate systems" "Equatorial coordinate system" "Celestial equator"
You mention the equator only for this coordinate system... but all other also
have an equator... these are also called "Ecliptic", "Galactic Plane", "Horizon", "Supergalactic Equator"
or "Supergalactic Plane".
> "Positional astronomy" "Celestial coordinate systems" "Horizon coordinate system"
I would prefer "Horizontal coordinate system"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Autumnal equinox"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Equinox correction"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Equinox position"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Mean equinox"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Vernal equinox"
YES! Here is where the "Besselian equinox" and "Julian Equinox" should go!
> "Positional astronomy" "Parallax" "Annual parallax"
You forgot about the "Spectroscopic Parallax" [actually nothing
to do with most other parallaxes... but very important! ]
> "Positional astronomy" "Stellar distance" "Faber-Jackson distance"
There are many other distance estimators, but the above one is
used to measure distances to galaxies, not stars in our Galaxy. Another
one of the same category would be "Tully-Fisher distance"
> "Positional astronomy" "Stellar distance" "Standard candles"
> "Positional astronomy" "Syzygy"
----------- end of comments to the UAT Beta_v2 ----------------------------------
your email with the comments by Bas Braams reminded me that I had scribbled
comments on my printout of the UAT_Beta_v2 which I had downloaded on July 8, 2013
but never made it to write them down in an email. Here they go.
I'm afraid that it appears to me that V2 of the UAT has never been
revised by a researcher attentively. I can't claim that I've looked
at all details, but concentrated on my area (galaxies, radio sources,
and large-scale structure) in addition to a few obvious general topics.
This version of the UAT needs a great deal of overhaul, homogenization,
and straightening out of logical errors. The homogenization e.g. would
avoid that sometimes words are used in singular, sometimes in plural...
I think the index pages for the major (large-volume) astronomical
textbooks could be of great help in this task. Looking forward to further
feedback.
Regards,
Heinz Andernach
Depto. de Astronomia, Univ. Guanajuato tel: +52-473-732-9548 or 732-9607 (ext. 2505)
Apartado Postal 144 FAX: +52-473-732-0253
Guanajuato, C.P. 36000, GTO, Mexico Email: he...@astro.ugto.mx
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers" "Hydroxyl masers"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers" "Silicon monoxide masers"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Astrophysical masers" "Water masers"
You'll want to include Megamasers
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Emission line galaxies" "Markarian galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Emission line objects" "Emission line galaxies" "Seyfert nuclei"
Why galaxies vs. nuclei ...? Better "Seyfert galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Double quasars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Individual quasars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Quasar-galaxy pairs"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "Radio quiet quasars"
need to add "Radio loud quasars" The term quasars was reserved for such radio-loud objects
only in the early days (til ~1970), after which lots of radio-quiet quasars were found.
Today both are called quasars, but then the two types should be distinguished and mentioned.
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Active galactic nuclei" "Quasars" "X-ray quasars"
You may as well add "Radio-loud Quasar" and "Radio-quiet Quasar", and "Broad-Absorption line Quasar" (BALQSO)
to these...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Emission line galaxies" "Liner galaxies"
"Liner" is an acronym for "Low-Ionization Narrow Emission Line Region"
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-ionization_nuclear_emission-line_region )
and should thus be typed in upper case letters only, although relaxed authors often
forget about this...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Emission line galaxies" "Markarian galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Emission line galaxies" "Seyfert nuclei"
same comment as above... why nuclei in the 2nd case vs. galaxies in the 1st case?
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Haro galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "LINEAR galaxies"
I believe the latter is a typo and should read "LINER galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "EP galaxies"
Never heard about EP galaxies... should be explained. I suspect that it is E_pec for
"peculiar E galaxy" ?
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Fanaroff-Riley radio galaxies"
This is INCORRECT ! Fanaroff & Riley (1974) proposed a classification of the radio
morphology of radio galaxies (i.e. purely based on the shape of the radio emission. According
to this classification there are "Fanaroff-Riley I radio galaxies" and "Fanaroff-Riley II radio galaxies",
also known as "FR I" and "FR II" type radio galaxies. There are also many radio galaxies
with morphologies that don't fit into either class, sometimes called FRI/II or
"hybrid" cases...
There are also so-called "HYMOR" radio galaxies, meaning hybrid morphology: one side of the radio
emission is FR I type, the opposite side is FR II type.
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Head-tail galaxies"
This is again nonsense... (sorry). There is no such thing as a "Head-tail galaxy" [why not singular,
by the way?]. There are only "Head-tail radio galaxies", since the "head-tail" morphology
is seen only in the radio emission. Citing from 2011PASA...28..215Norris et al:
"Head tail, wide-angle tail (WAT), and narrow-angle tail [RADIO] galaxies (collectively named
`tailed radio galaxies') are believed to represent radio-loud AGNs in which the jets are distorted
by the intra-cluster medium." (Note that as a coauthor of the paper I had to argue with the
first author to insert the word RADIO, but he didn't do it in the indicated case... )
Thus, a more complete set of entries of the UAT could be:
"Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Tailed radio galaxies"
"Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Tailed radio galaxies" "Wide-angle tail radio galaxies"
"Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Tailed radio galaxies" "Narrow-angle tail radio galaxies"
and in the latter three entries the term "Tailed radio galaxies" is perfectly synonymous to
"Head-tail radio galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Bipolar galaxies"
I don't think this is an accepted term... checking wikepedia I found it
in one article (1992RvMA....5..200Notni P.), which, according to ADS, doesn't have a single citation...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Compact galaxies"
this could have the following sublevels: "Blue Compact galaxies" and "Blue Compact dwarfs"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Andromeda Galaxy"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Triangulum Galaxy"
This type of item could be completed with many such names, like e.g. "Whirlpool Galaxy"...
NED and Simbad probably have dozens of them...
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Barred spiral galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Disk galaxies" "Spiral galaxies" "Barred spiral galaxies" "B galaxies"
Not sure whether "B galaxies" should be included... the B is just used within a classification
system as an additional letter to indicate the presence of a bar in a galaxy
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies" "Dwarf elliptical galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies" "Dwarf spheroidal galaxies"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Dwarf galaxies" "Dwarf irregular galaxies"
"Ultracompact dwarf" should be added as another flavor of these
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Elliptical galaxies" "E galaxies" "EP galaxies"
same comment as above... probably E_pec for "peculiar elliptical galaxy"
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Field galaxies"
If this term is kept, I'll fight for the "Cluster (member) galaxies" .... ;-)
Also, I don't see "polar ring galaxies" being mentioned.
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Galaxy components" "Galactic halos" "Stellar rings"
Not sure whether "Stellar rings" are accepted at all, but don't they exist also in the
Galactic disk, or only in the halo ?
> "Astronomical objects" "Interstellar medium" "Interstellar clouds" "H I regions" "HI line"
the "HI line" is not an "Astronomical object"
> "Astronomical objects" "Interstellar medium" "Interstellar jets"
Not sure what that is...
> "Astronomical objects" "Interstellar medium" "Tidal tails"
"Tidal tails" should, at the very least, also be mentioned under "Galaxy components"
> "Astronomical objects" "Nebulae" "H I regions" "HI line"
the "HI line" is not an "Astronomical object"
> "Astronomical objects" "Nebulae" "Emission nebulae" "H II regions" "Compact H II region"
there are also "Ultracompact H II regions" (UCHII)
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Earth (planet)"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Mars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Mercury"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Inner planets" "Venus"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Jupiter"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Neptune"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Saturn"
> "Astronomical objects" "Planets" "Outer planets" "Uranus"
These should better ONLY go under "Solar system" (where they already are)
> "Astronomical objects" "Solar system" "Asteroid belt"
"Asteroids" are already mentioned before, but would fit in here as well.
> "Astronomical objects" "Solar system" "Planetary rings" "Ansae"
"Spokes" in planetary rings could be included here.
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Charged black holes" "Reissner?ÛÒNordstr̦m black holes"
avoid non-ASCII symbols like umlauts.
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Stellar mass black holes"
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Supermassive black holes"
recently a search for "intermediate-mass black holes" has become very popular...
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Faint stars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Faint stars" "Faint blue stars"
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Faint stars" "Faint blue stars" "Blue stragglers"
We know that among the "Faint blue stars" (e.g. from the Luyten, PHL or Ton catalogs)
many are actually cuasars... so they should be put under a different categories
than just "Stars"... e.g. "Starlike objects" or some such.
> "Celestial mechanics" "Gravitation" "Gravitational lensing"
curious... I never felt that "Gravitational lensing" was part of "Celestial mechanics", but rather
"General Relativity"
> "Celestial mechanics" "Gravitation" "Gravitational lensing" "Luminous arcs"
these could be mentioned also under "Astronomical objects", as well as "Gravitational Lenses",
but a clear distinction should be made between "Lenses" (the objects that cause the effect
in the line of sight) and "Gravitationally Lensed Objects" [the ones that are far behind the lens
and appear distorted. In the literature the two are used sinonymously, which the should NOT
be!
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources"
I don't see this relation... like many other that were put under "Cosmology"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Compact radiation sources"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Extended sources"
why not "Extended radiation sources" as in the first line above? Anyway, what's
the relation with "Cosmology" ?
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Gamma-ray sources"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Gamma-ray sources" "Soft gamma ray repeaters"
there are many more subtypes or classes of gamma-ray sources, e.g. (taken
from 2012ApJS..199...31Nolan P.L. et al.: 2FGL catalog) :
Table 6. LAT 2FGL Source Classes
Description Identified Associated
Designator Number Designator Number
----+----1----+----2----+----3----+----4----+----5----+----6----+---
Pulsar, identified by pulsations PSR 83 - -
Pulsar, no pulsations seen in LAT yet ... psr 25
Pulsar wind nebula PWN 3 pwn 0
Supernova remnant SNR 6 snr 4
Supernova remnant/pulsar wind nebula ... # 58
Globular cluster GLC 0 glc 11
High-mass binary HMB 4 hmb 0
Nova NOV 1 nov 0
BL Lac object type of blazar BZB 7 bzb 429
FSRQ type of blazar BZQ 17 bzq 353
Non-blazar active galaxy AGN 1 agn 10
Radio galaxy RDG 2 rdg 10
Seyfert galaxy SEY 1 sey 5
Active galaxy of uncertain type AGU 0 agu 257
Normal galaxy (or part) GAL 2 gal 4
Starburst galaxy SBG 0 sbg 4
Class uncertain - - - 1
Unassociated - - - 575
Total - 127 1746
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Non-thermal radiation sources"
why not also "Thermal radiation sources" ?
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Discrete radio sources"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Extragalactic radio sources"
why not also "Galactic radio sources" (the ones which pertain to OUR Galaxy) ?
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio continuum emission"
I disagree with this order or logic.... "Radio continuum emission" is what we receive
from "Radio sources", but not a sublevel of it...
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio stars"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio jets"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio jets" "Polar jets"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio jets" "Relativistic jets"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio lobes"
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Radio sources" "Radio structures" "Radio plumes"
"Radio Hot Spots" and "Radio cores" may be added to this list.
> "Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "X-ray sources" "Diffuse x-ray background"
This is a matter of debate... I would reverse the order of the last two items:
"Cosmology" "Astronomical radiation sources" "Diffuse x-ray background" "X-ray sources"
since the background emission can in fact be resolved into individual sources
> "Cosmology" "Astrophysical dust processes"
> "Cosmology" "Astrophysical dust processes" "Interstellar dust processes"
Just repeating... why is this under "Cosmology" and not something like "Radiation Processes" ?
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology" "Astronomical epochs"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology" "Astronomical epochs" "Besselian epoch"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmochronology" "Astronomical epochs" "Julian epoch"
The first two lines are OK, but the last two confuse the terms "Epoch" and
"Equinox" ... there is no such thing as the "Besselian epoch" nor "Julian epoch",
these are equinoxes, but half of the astronomical literature confuses the two.
Equinox is the nominal "epoch" for the definition of an equatorial coordinate
system, while "epoch" is the date of an observation or the date when a moving
object can be found at a certain position (expressed in equatorial coordinates
of a certain equinox... where epoch and equinox are independent dates ... and concepts !
These last two lines should be moved to "Positional Astronomy"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmological models" "Inflationary universe"
> "Cosmology" "Cosmological models" "Lemaitre universe"
I've also seen "Loitering Universe" and "Coasting Universe", a "Critical Universe",
"decelerating Universe", "Eddington's antibang Universe" ... and probably many more.
> "Cosmology" "Mass transfer" "Mass exchange"
> "Cosmology" "Mass transfer" "Stellar mass loss"
> "Cosmology" "Mass transfer" "Stellar mass loss" "Plasma jets"
Here again, I wonder why this comes under "Cosmology" ?
> "Cosmology" "Steady-state theory"
> "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution"
> "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution" "Asymptotic giant branch"
again... why all this under "Cosmology" ?
> "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution" "Kelvin?ÛÒHelmholtz timescale"
don't use non-ASCII characters
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Armillary spheres"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Astronomical sextants"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Orreries"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Photoheliographs"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Early astronomical instruments" "Ptolemy stones"
why not also include "Stone Circles" here, like the one's in Britain ?
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Optical telescopes" "Catadioptric telescopes" "Schmidt cameras"
the "Schmidt cameras" appears to be a detector, not a type of telescope...?
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Optical telescopes" "Reflecting telescopes" "Cassegrain telescopes" "Ritchey?ÛÒChrÌ©tien telescopes"
don't use non-ASCII characters
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radar telescopes"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers"
if you include the above, I'll fight for inclusion of
"Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Single-dish antennas"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Heterodyne receivers"
There are many more other types of receivers.
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Long baseline interferometers"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very long baseline interferometers"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very long baseline interferometers" "Very Large Array"
NO, the "Very Large Array" is NOT one of the "Very long baseline interferometers"
It should be separate like:
"Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very Large Array"
and there many, many more... e.g. the "Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope",
the "Ryle Telescope", the "Very Small Array", the "Molonglo Cross", the "Australia Telescope Compact Array" ...
you want all of them ...?
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Telescope mounts" "Altazimuth mounts"
perhaps better "Alt-azimuth mounts" (for altitude-azimuth ...)
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Very Large Telescope"
This one (the VLT) should go under
"Equipment and apparatus" "Optical Telescopes"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras" "Cloud monitors"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Baker-Nunn cameras"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Schmidt cameras"
should read "Schmidt telescopes"... the camera is the detector part of a telescope
One should add "Liquid Mirror Telescopes"
> "Galactic physics" "Galactic spurs"
The "North Polar Spur" is one of them...
The Galactic Radio Loops should also be mentioned (perhaps under "Galactic Radio Continuum Emission")
> "Galactic physics" "Galaxy kinematics" "Galactic anticenters"
I would think there only ONE "Galactic anticenter", ... this concept depends
on the location of an observer inside a Galaxy... and for the moment we're the
only known civilization in the Universe that could have defined a direction
opposite to OUR Galactic center... it makes no sense (for the moment) to define
this for another galaxy.
> "Galactic physics" "Galaxy kinematics" "Galactic equators"
> "Galactic physics" "Galaxy kinematics" "Galactic planes"
I would tend to make the same comment as above for the above two terms...
> "Lunar physics" "Selenology" "Lunar rills"
This should read "Rilles" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rille). It is
based on the German word "Rille" (groove), therefore the "e" in the plural "rilles".
> "Methods and techniques" "Gas-to-dust ratio"
why not also "mass-to-light ratio", very common in extragalactic astronomy to
estimate the amount of dark matter present in galaxies and clusters
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Astrometry"
much of what is listed under this item, actually corresponds to "Photometry"
Example:
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Astrometry" "Bolometric correction"
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Astrometry" "Standard stars" "Photometric standard stars"
well, there are "Standard stars" for "Astrometry" and for "Photometry"
The UAT is confusing the two.
> "Methods and techniques" "Observation techniques" "Photometry" "CCD photometry" "Medium band photometry" "Str̦mgren photometric system"
the UAT lists a lot of different "photometries" like "Sloan photometry", "Kron-Cousins photometry",
etc, but they could all be better called "XYZ photometric system"
> "Observational astronomy" "Magnitude" "Apparent magnitude"
> "Observational astronomy" "Magnitude" "Apparent magnitude" "B magnitude"
> "Observational astronomy" "Magnitude" "Apparent magnitude" "H magnitude"
There are many more such bands... e.g. the SDSS u', g', r', i' and z' bands are not mentioned
> "Positional astronomy" "Astronomical location" "Location behind"
> "Positional astronomy" "Astronomical location" "Location between"
> "Positional astronomy" "Astronomical location" "Location in front"
I'm not sure about the usefulness of the above terms.
> "Positional astronomy" "Celestial coordinate systems" "Equatorial coordinate system" "Celestial equator"
You mention the equator only for this coordinate system... but all other also
have an equator... these are also called "Ecliptic", "Galactic Plane", "Horizon", "Supergalactic Equator"
or "Supergalactic Plane".
> "Positional astronomy" "Celestial coordinate systems" "Horizon coordinate system"
I would prefer "Horizontal coordinate system"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Autumnal equinox"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Equinox correction"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Equinox position"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Mean equinox"
> "Positional astronomy" "Equinox" "Vernal equinox"
YES! Here is where the "Besselian equinox" and "Julian Equinox" should go!
> "Positional astronomy" "Parallax" "Annual parallax"
You forgot about the "Spectroscopic Parallax" [actually nothing
to do with most other parallaxes... but very important! ]
> "Positional astronomy" "Stellar distance" "Faber-Jackson distance"
There are many other distance estimators, but the above one is
used to measure distances to galaxies, not stars in our Galaxy. Another
one of the same category would be "Tully-Fisher distance"
> "Positional astronomy" "Stellar distance" "Standard candles"
> "Positional astronomy" "Syzygy"
----------- end of comments to the UAT Beta_v2 ----------------------------------
Katie Frey
Sep 5, 2013, 11:15:14 AM9/5/13
to uat-...@googlegroups.com
Hello Heinz,
Wow, thank you for all of your comments! This is exactly the kind of feedback we want. I agree that the UAT still needs a comprehensive and critical review before being fully ready. That is one of the reasons we still consider the UAT to be at a "beta" stage.--
Katie E. Frey
John G. Wolbach Library
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
60 Garden Street, MS-56, Cambridge, MA 02138
kf...@cfa.harvard.edu
617-496-7579
http://astrothesaurus.org
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/lib/
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/
"Surprising what you can dig out of books if you read long enough, isn’t it?”
- Rand al'Thor (in Robert Jordan's The Shadow Rising, Book Four of the Wheel of Time)
Katie E. Frey
John G. Wolbach Library
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
60 Garden Street, MS-56, Cambridge, MA 02138
kf...@cfa.harvard.edu
617-496-7579
http://astrothesaurus.org
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/lib/
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/
"Surprising what you can dig out of books if you read long enough, isn’t it?”
- Rand al'Thor (in Robert Jordan's The Shadow Rising, Book Four of the Wheel of Time)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Astronomical objects" "Galaxies" "Active galaxies" "Radio galaxies" "Head-tail galaxies"
This is again nonsense... (sorry). There is no such thing as a "Head-tail galaxy" [why not singular, by the way?].
** thesauri standards put terms in plural, hopefully everything should be in the plural case when possible.
> "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Charged black holes" "Reissner?ÛÒNordstr̦m black holes"
avoid non-ASCII symbols like umlauts.
> "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution" "Kelvin?ÛÒHelmholtz timescale"
don't use non-ASCII characters
don't use non-ASCII characters
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Optical telescopes" "Reflecting telescopes" "Cassegrain telescopes" "Ritchey?ÛÒChrÌ©tien telescopes"
don't use non-ASCII characters
don't use non-ASCII characters
** Are non-ASCII characters usually avoided in the literature? They are not displaying properly in the beta version due to some bad/careless exporting, but this is something that can be easily fixed (and has been fixed on the website versions of the UAT). If non-ASCII characters can (and will!) be displayed properly would you still recommend we avoid them?
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Long baseline interferometers"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very long baseline interferometers"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very long baseline interferometers" "Very Large Array"
NO, the "Very Large Array" is NOT one of the "Very long baseline interferometers"
It should be separate like:
"Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Radio telescopes" "Radio interferometers" "Very Large Array"
and there many, many more... e.g. the "Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope",
the "Ryle Telescope", the "Very Small Array", the "Molonglo Cross", the "Australia Telescope Compact Array" ...
you want all of them ...?
** just the most well known examples, I think! The UAT isn't supposed to be a comprehensive list of objects. In the field of astronomy in particular that could become overly large, especially when there are already sites (such as Simbad for astronomical objects) that already do a great job of cataloging and listing.
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes"a
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes"a
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras" "Cloud monitors"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Baker-Nunn cameras"
> "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Schmidt cameras"
should read "Schmidt telescopes"... the camera is the detector part of a telescope
One should add "Liquid Mirror Telescopes"
**should the others be altered as well? "All-sky telescopes"? "Baker-Nunn telescopes"? Or are the cameras valid siblings of "Schmidt telescopes"?
----------- end of notes on comments to the UAT Beta_v2 -------------
----------- end of notes on comments to the UAT Beta_v2 -------------
Heinz Andernach
Sep 5, 2013, 2:18:46 PM9/5/13
to uat-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Katie,
here are some responses to your questions about my comments to UAT Beta_v2:
> ** thesauri standards put terms in plural, hopefully everything should be
> in the plural case when possible.
OK, I didn't know that. However, some terms obviously only should exist
in singular like e.g the Galactic center (of our Galaxy...)
> > "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Charged
> black holes" "Reissner?ÛÒNordstr̦m black holes"
> avoid non-ASCII symbols like umlauts.
> > "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution" "Kelvin?ÛÒHelmholtz timescale"
> don't use non-ASCII characters
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Optical telescopes"
> "Reflecting telescopes" "Cassegrain telescopes" "Ritchey?ÛÒChrÌ©tien
> telescopes"
> don't use non-ASCII characters
>
> ** Are non-ASCII characters usually avoided in the literature?
No, I didn't mean to say that. I only meant to say that these special
characters are not interpreted correctly by different editors. One could
e.g. transcribe the umlaut into two ASCII characters (adding an e), but
other may be more difficult. I found one occasion where the UAT doesn't
put any special character, while it SHOULD have done so: "Opik theory"
the initial "O" is actually an Umlaut...
> They are not displaying properly in the beta version due to some bad/careless
> exporting, but this is something that can be easily fixed (and has been
> fixed on the website versions of the UAT). If non-ASCII characters can
> (and will!) be displayed properly would you still recommend we avoid them?
NO, but it could happen that with a cut-and-paste from the web
into an ASCII file and using certain editors (I use vi) the non-ASCII character
may not be recognized properly.
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes"
need to see examples. My feeling is that "All-sky cameras" should also
be changed to "All-sky telescopes" , but I'd prefer that some other expert
comment on these.
Cheers,
Heinz
here are some responses to your questions about my comments to UAT Beta_v2:
> ** thesauri standards put terms in plural, hopefully everything should be
> in the plural case when possible.
in singular like e.g the Galactic center (of our Galaxy...)
> > "Astronomical objects" "Stars" "Compact stars" "Black holes" "Charged
> black holes" "Reissner?ÛÒNordstr̦m black holes"
> avoid non-ASCII symbols like umlauts.
> > "Cosmology" "Stellar evolution" "Kelvin?ÛÒHelmholtz timescale"
> don't use non-ASCII characters
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Optical telescopes"
> "Reflecting telescopes" "Cassegrain telescopes" "Ritchey?ÛÒChrÌ©tien
> telescopes"
> don't use non-ASCII characters
>
> ** Are non-ASCII characters usually avoided in the literature?
characters are not interpreted correctly by different editors. One could
e.g. transcribe the umlaut into two ASCII characters (adding an e), but
other may be more difficult. I found one occasion where the UAT doesn't
put any special character, while it SHOULD have done so: "Opik theory"
the initial "O" is actually an Umlaut...
> They are not displaying properly in the beta version due to some bad/careless
> exporting, but this is something that can be easily fixed (and has been
> fixed on the website versions of the UAT). If non-ASCII characters can
> (and will!) be displayed properly would you still recommend we avoid them?
into an ASCII file and using certain editors (I use vi) the non-ASCII character
may not be recognized properly.
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes"
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras"
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras" "Cloud monitors"
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" > "Baker-Nunn cameras"
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Schmidt > cameras"
> should read "Schmidt telescopes"... the camera is the detector part of a telescope
> One should add "Liquid Mirror Telescopes"
>
> **should the others be altered as well? "All-sky telescopes"? "Baker-Nunn
> telescopes"? Or are the cameras valid siblings of "Schmidt telescopes"?
To be honest, I don't know what is meant with "All-sky cameras"... I would
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "All-sky cameras" "Cloud monitors"
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" > "Baker-Nunn cameras"
> > "Equipment and apparatus" "Telescopes" "Wide-field telescopes" "Schmidt > cameras"
> should read "Schmidt telescopes"... the camera is the detector part of a telescope
> One should add "Liquid Mirror Telescopes"
>
> **should the others be altered as well? "All-sky telescopes"? "Baker-Nunn
> telescopes"? Or are the cameras valid siblings of "Schmidt telescopes"?
need to see examples. My feeling is that "All-sky cameras" should also
be changed to "All-sky telescopes" , but I'd prefer that some other expert
comment on these.
Cheers,
Heinz
Michael Roberts
Sep 6, 2013, 5:42:07 AM9/6/13
to uat-...@googlegroups.com, he...@astro.ugto.mx
Hi all,
I'd just like to add a comment re use of non-ASCII characters in the UAT. The canonical document (I presume this will be a SKOS file, or similar richly linked XML document) should really use UTF-8 (no BOM) and have the relevant declarations in the file so that compliant software will recognise it as such and handle the 'special' characters correctly. I accept that another encoding of the Unicode character set could be used, although my feeling is that UTF-8 will allow the broadest compatibility and re-use. ASCII is not sufficient to cover current and future use; as Unicode is the current standard character set that should be what is used.
Heinz, if you're having problems with pasting special characters into your editor, that may be because it's set up to use an encoding other than UTF-8 by default (e.g. Latin-1, also known as ISO-8859-1). I don't know enouch about vi to comment further, although this post on Stack Overflow may be helpful.
Regards,
Mike
I'd just like to add a comment re use of non-ASCII characters in the UAT. The canonical document (I presume this will be a SKOS file, or similar richly linked XML document) should really use UTF-8 (no BOM) and have the relevant declarations in the file so that compliant software will recognise it as such and handle the 'special' characters correctly. I accept that another encoding of the Unicode character set could be used, although my feeling is that UTF-8 will allow the broadest compatibility and re-use. ASCII is not sufficient to cover current and future use; as Unicode is the current standard character set that should be what is used.
Heinz, if you're having problems with pasting special characters into your editor, that may be because it's set up to use an encoding other than UTF-8 by default (e.g. Latin-1, also known as ISO-8859-1). I don't know enouch about vi to comment further, although this post on Stack Overflow may be helpful.
Regards,
Mike
Claudia Boeris
Sep 10, 2013, 12:07:28 PM9/10/13
to uat-...@googlegroups.com
Dear All,
I am thinking about starting using UAT. In our library we assign keywords and I would like to ask your opinion about this point. Could you give me some tips to starting use UAT?
-----------
Claudia
Claudia
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UAT users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to uat-users+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to uat-...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/uat-users.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Christian Tzurcanu
Dec 4, 2013, 11:02:02 PM12/4/13
to uat-...@googlegroups.com, he...@astro.ugto.mx
Hi all,
I'd second that with:
the following computational advice: the terms should be (where possible):
-without capitals unless eponym
-at singular as number
-at masculine as gender (but in English you don't have this problem, but in translations you will)
Why? Because you want to make this classification machine-readable. There is minimal manipulation to make this form human-readable where the reverse is not true.
Why you want this to be machine-readable? So we can use tools like the synthetic writing tool at:
also good for indexing research papers :D
Thanks,
Christian Tzurcanu, volunteer
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages