- From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:28:26 -0500
- To: w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>
On Thursday 10 July 2008, "Matthias Samwald" <samwald@gmx.at> wrote: > A slight shift in topic: I wonder how secure such specialised types > of wiki content are from vandalisaton or errors introduced by > improper use. Generally, wikis can counter such threats through the > power of the 'thousand eyes' of the readers, who can quickly jump in > and correct obvious errors. This will probably not work with large > amounts of non-textual data, such as amino acid sequences or > molecular weights. It is rather unlikely that a user of the system > will have a look at a sequence and think 'oh, there is a tryptophan > in position 332, let's revert that back to leucine'. Of course, this > threat also exists in semantic wikis, altough they might be better > protected (consistency checking, less redundancy of content, easier > maintenance). There's certainly some checksums that we could implement, and nightly/weekly automated random sampling of data sets, or really, as NCBI seems to be doing it, they do official releases, where they collect contributions from various groups and teams, and then upon review insert them into the official release. This is the same with debian. But you can always go to the front of the lines and get the latest (whether or not it's right / it works) (though maybe not with NCBI?). This same practice could be applied. - Bryan ________________________________________ http://heybryan.org/ Engineers: http://heybryan.org/exp.html irc.freenode.net #hplusroadmap "Genius is the ability to escape the human condition; Humanity is the need to escape." -- Q. Uim
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2008 19:25:07 UTC