Marco,

One must justify beliefs and decisions with facts. Please explain the following:

1) Why must Astroinformatics be recognized as an essential methodology of astronomical research? What are the weaknesses in current disciplines which the Astroinformatics discipline addresses?

2) Please give concrete examples of findings that were obtained by Astroinformatic principles and not by other principles.

3) Please compare and contrast the main concepts, tools, and methodologies of Astroinformatics with other disciplines.

Ni Ha, I think you should first read the extensive literature on the topic, both on theory and applications.

Even more, Marco quoted an article, so he's not the one who needs to address your doubts (unless he chooses to). Since the quote comes from "Astroinformatics: A 21st Century Approach to Astronomy", why not starting there? The article is available for free: http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3892

Even the abstract will get you started. You can also follow several of the citations therein.

Also check:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030312071232.htm

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0409/

David,

I was asking for details that were not explained in the links you gave. The issue really revolves around the authorities / responsibilities and functions / duties of Astroinformaticians in the organization chart. Who does what and who reports to whom in the chart? What policies, procedures, bylaws and principles guide an Astroinformatician in executing his or her duties? If Astroinformaticians specialize in crunching large volumes of data, should they be also responsible of analyzing the data? Why not create a group of analysts that specialize in analyzing the increasing volume of data just as we created a group for crunching such data? And supposing that the new discipline is recognized, what then would happen to functions currently existing in organization charts? Must these positions be cut? Thank you for your response.

Ni Ha, the first and third questions *are* answered in the main article that Marco cited. For concrete examples, the two extra links I gave you are good examples, and you will find plenty of other examples by searching "astroinformatics discovery" or "virtual observatory discovery" (both without quotes).

You are now moving the goalpost by asking other details that differ from the original 3 questions. Your new questions suggest, in my opinion, that you need to learn a bit more about how research is done. Tasks are not always as clear-cut as you seem to think, and will depend on specific policies, styles, researchers' skills and the availability of research networks (both internal and external) and infrastructure of each institution. Funding is also an issue that defines what is/can be, done.

Regarding the training of people needed for these tasks, that is also addressed in the article, even if rather in a shallow form, but the references there will give you a better idea, and again, it depends on specific cases.

This should give you some hints on other details:

http://stuver.blogspot.com/2011/03/big-dog-in-envelope.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2649

I suggest you starting a new thread in a general astronomy board on how research is done in astronomy. That will be more helpful for answering your questions.

David,

I appreciate supporting statements with concrete examples. You claim that I move the goalpost but you do not support this statement with examples. I assure you that I am looking for the truth here and it is not my intent to change posts.

Please note that I am merely questioning the logic of the approach of establishing the discipline as separate entity and not saying that I am against it. So please bear with my questions.

I am asking these questions because I want to know who will Astroinformaticians be accountable to at the end of the day. Who will have access to their work results? Will they, for example, publish work in the Internet and sign their names with the title of Astroinformatician instead of, say, Astrophysicist or Researcher, etc? And who would evaluate whether their work is worth the while? You see, there is a fundamental conflict in what you say. If the raison d’être of Astroinformatics is compiling data and making it more available to wider audiences, then it serves no purpose to restrict access of the public to the mechanisms of operation and philosophy of existence of such discipline. One must decide whether he or she wants to facilitate or restrict access to information. So will Astroinformaticians do a better job than current astronomers in publishing results and making them more accessible to scrutiny or will they use the tools at their disposal to close up and monopolize information? Please note that these questions also were not addressed in the links you gave. If that is untrue then please prove me wrong. Thank you for your answers.

Dear friends, let me enter in this interesting discussion with just a couple of statement.

First, a short clarification about myself. I'm admittedly not an "expert" in astroinformatics (well, not yet...); therefore, I opened this group not for teach or explain something, but more as an opportunity to share a common interest (or.. passion, if you prefer).

Regarding the Ni Ha second question (i.e., "examples") since I'm in the DAME group (DAta Mining & Exploration, http://dame.dsf.unina.it/), first of all I would point you a bibliography of works related with DAME Project activities, since in my vision that can be intended as "concrete examples" you was asking for - at least. for our project:

http://dame.dsf.unina.it/science_papers.html