On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Mark Wilden mark@mwilden.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Mark Wilden mark@mwilden.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:28 AM, John Wieczorek tuco@berkeley.edu
wrote:
Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary.
This sounds like an incorrect usage of the term "best practice," to me. It can't be a "best practice" to do something that is impossible, and if a controlled vocabulary doesn't exist... As you indicate, this has a requirement that hasn't yet been met.
It is not a requirement, it is a recommendation.
I meant "required" in the logical sense. If 50 different groups are each using their own vocabulary, it isn't really very controlled, in my view. In order for there to be a truly useful controlled vocabulary, it is required that everyone use the same one.
I'm sure I don't agree with this. I think it is extremely useful to take the first step by creating vocabularies within disciplines that make sense within that discipline. This approach allows for buy-in at a natural level of organization and understanding (not to mention activity), allows evolution, and can be resolved at the level of ontologies that synonymize between vocabularies when necessary.
It is not impossible, just
make a vocabulary. Well, hopefully with some community buy-in and open access. GBIF's vocabulary registry (http://vocabularies.gbif.org/) comes
to
mind as a solution.
That sounds good.
///ark Web Applications Developer Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics California Academy of Sciences