Re: FAQ : Is this vocabulary currently curated?

Hi László

2011/11/21 László Török <ltorokjr@gmail.com>

>
> I would assume that in real, Web-scale scenarios, you need to derive the
>> respective information from a multiplicity of signals, e.g.
>>
>> +1 There is no way telling how reliable that information will be and
> there isn't much value in doing any of that kind of meta-formalism if not
> of high quality.
>

There are ways. If the vocabulary declares as curatorContact foo@bar.org,
and I sent a message do I get an answer? Is there a place where FAQ are set
and answered? etc.


>
>
>> - adoption rate in data
>> - HTTP header information
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> I would expect that most dead vocabularies on the Web, created in some
>> PhD thesis project and long abandoned by its creator would still bear the
>> "actively maintained" flag in the code.
>>
> +1 another example of the data quality aspect of this kind of metadata.
>

Indeed. The way is not static metadata, but metadata enabling a social
process. There is in general not enough social interaction between
vocabulary maintainers and users. We need social tools around a vocabulary.
Use Google+, whatever. More lack of imagination than lack of tools,
actually ...

 Also, as of now, the number of relevant Web ontologies is pretty small, so
>> it is unclear whether an automated approach is cost-efficient.
>>
> +1 These aspects are more relevant to humans (e.g. programmers writing
> software leveraging certain ontologies). There will be a multitude of
> factors involved while assessing the "actively maintained" status and
> usefulness in general. As long as Martin Hepp noted, the number of useful
> vocabularies will remain small and only vocabularies with significant
> uptake and community support will continue to exist.
>

The history of vocabularies on the Web is quite short so far and I would
not risk any predictions ...

Bernard