I'll try to explain, but please respond if you do not
understand something I say.
Wikipedia is an example of a curated vocabulary. In the
original model for Wikipedia, anyone could submit or edit anything. The idea
was that people would collaborate and produce the best possible information
about the terms. However, people sometimes disagree, and the result was chaos
as edit wars erupted in some areas. Wikipedia gradually transformed into an
information development model in which individuals and appointed groups are
editorially responsible for content in an assigned topic area. These
individuals are the "curators".
For an enterprise vocabulary, consistency and validity
are important. Such vocabularies are "curated" by a group within the
enterprise. This group has typically been responsible for collecting the
information from subject matter experts (SMEs), testing it for consistency and
validity, and then publishing it for others in the enterprise to use.
With the Semantic Web, there is the possibility of a different,
less labor intensive model of curating. In this model, SMEs can directly
produce information, e.g. by creating or editing a Wiki page. Semantic Web
technologies like OWL-DL allow this information to be classified by the
curators. It can then be republished to the Wiki, but with semantic tags that
allow the users to find similar content or to follow various semantic
For an example of this, visit http://biomedgt.nci.nih.gov/wiki/index.php/BGT.
Notice that the term links on this page are actually produced by semantic
queries embedded in the Wikitext. For more information, you can have a look at http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2009_01_22.
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Eddy
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] UML Meta-Model and Notation
On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Jim Rhyne wrote:
> Some of us hope that we can use a "curated
> vocabulary" approach to address it. In this
approach, the SMEs and
> users are not exposed to this kind of terminology.
Could you please to explain/expound what you mean by
I am pondering this odd phraseology through this lens:
- "real words" (the stuff found in
dictionaries) have on average 10
- "short words" (e.g. acronyms, initialisms,
abbreviations, etc.) have an average of 35 meanings
per term. (e.g.
"it" has at least 89 meanings, "cms"
has 263 meanings)
Surfing "curated vocabulary" returns 415 Google
hits... clearly on
the BLEEDING edge of fashion.
Seeing that Kingsley Idehen is involved certainly helps
useful context for me since I know a teeny bit about his
would be totally context free for the remaining 99.9999%
> Closed Vocabulary Construction - rather than
commence the futile
> quest of building your own closed vocabulary, simply
> Wikipedia's human curated vocabulary as our common
This is at the opposite end of the spectrum where I'm
helping to understand how (several) systems can
vocabulary in & around systems is NOT—at least
up until now—publicly
"curated." While "peer reviews"
and "naming conventions" are long
standing valuable activities, I don't think they're
If I'm using a vocabulary, I want it to be laser focused
on the system
(s) I'm wrestling with, not something from Wikipedia,
where the odds
are—AT BEST—one in 45 (10 + 35) that the
meaning in my system is the
same as what is vetted in Wikipedia.
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx