I personally would be very interested in seeing what the Wikipedia
review policies are.
There is now also http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/, founded by some of
the founders of Wikipedia, but with enhanced attention to good
reviewing policies/boards.
BS (01)
At 03:52 PM 3/21/2008, Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
> > Bill,
> >
> >> - I would not expect the "gatekeeper" to exclude any particular
> >> ontology from an "open" repository.
> >>
> > There seems to be a misunderstanding. Gatekeeping -- at least in the
> > context of this thread -- is exactly about the minimal criteria that any
> > ontology needs to meet in order to be accepted as part of the repository.
> >
> >
>
>+1 on the importance of gatekeeping using a minimal set of criteria.
>
>What follows are some thoughts that have been percolating in my head as
>I listen to all the good ideas in recent threads.
>
>Since the scope of the OOR is quite broad and covers both upper and
>domain ontologies we should architect the OOR to support
>a distributed and federated governance model. To me this implies the
>following:
>
> * There will not be a single governance body and set of governance
> policies acting as a gatekeeper on all nodes of a federated OOR
> * Each OOR sub-community would be responsible for administering its
> own OOR node and enforcing theor own governance policies
> * The governance policies of the root OOR may impact the policies of
> sub-OOR and serve as a reference model for them
> o In many cases sub-OOR may simply adopt some, most or all the
> governance policies of the root OOR. That would be their
> decision.
> * We need to primarily focus on the governance aspects of the root
> OOR and start capturing it in a new wiki page(s). I expect such
> page(s) to define:
> o The organizational policies (ala by-laws) of the OOR
> o Key operational business processes and the workflow between them
> o The technical policies (e.g. role-based access control
> policies etc.)
> * Operational business policies would include a review board and
> approval process for approving new submissions to the OOR
> * Wikipedia has a similar problem of distributed authoring, review
> and approval. Perhaps we should investigate how wikipedia's review
> and approval process work and perhaps adopt them as a starting point
>
>What do folks think?
>
>--
>Regards,
>Farrukh Najmi
>
>Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (02)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (03)
|