- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 00:17:58 +0200
- To: "Lee Feigenbaum" <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
On 31/03/07, Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com> wrote: [snip] > What I care about and think is important for our education and outreach > efforts is for us to do the work to identify what the cream of the crop > SemWeb information resources are, and then organize them based on which > ones are most useful for which types of people. To do this, I believe that > we need to augment the existing information resources with: > > a/ some way to identify the best (this could be digg.com-style ratings, > google-style rankings (don't think we need that level of complexity), or > even just simple "best of breed" flags) That could roughly be split into three different approaches according to how the data's generated: manually ("best of breed" flags) algorithmically (linkrank etc - there's probably some existing open service that could help) user feedback (digg etc) I suspect that's more-or-less in order of how hard and/or time-consuming each would be. It'd be undesirable for work on the fancier approaches to hold up publication in the simpler form, but I guess it could be built incrementally. (If Tom Heath's http://revyu.com was rebranded a little it could serve to provide user feedback, though it might take a long time to get a useful quantity of scores in). Hmm, "best of breed" would have to rely on someone's value judgements, does that sound ok? Maybe there's also something fairly objective nearby - maturity (age in years), activity (1/time since last release)..? > b/ appropriate predicates and editorial work to associate information > resources with the appropriate audience that each is aimed at (both on a > technical capability level and on a industry/domain level) Sounds very desirable & not unreasonable, as long as the effort needed can be kept within sane limits. Again, maybe sophistication by increments would be a good idea. I don't see any way of avoiding the design and/or selection of suitable predicates. But perhaps the editorial workload could be reduced by creating a questionnaire, asking the the tool developers to fill it in themselves (which could even be rigged up to generate triples fed directly into the store, say tweak DOAP-a-matic a little). Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2007 22:18:01 UTC