tuco at berkeley.edu
Tue Aug 24 18:47:37 CEST 2010
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Mark Wilden <mark at mwilden.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:28 AM, John Wieczorek <tuco at berkeley.edu>
> >> > 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
> > mind as a solution.
> That sounds good.
> Web Applications Developer
> Center for Applied Biodiversity Informatics
> California Academy of Sciences
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tdwg-content