Wikipedia has clearly been working in the general sciences, though of course it has its limitations. (For example, one probably would not use a wikipedia URL as a concept identifier in a Semantic Web application, because the definition of a term can change as fast as a user can type in a browser.) It will be interesting to see how quickly its gravity pulls in life sciences terms.
David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 617 629 8881 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nigam Shah > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:06 PM > To: 'June Kinoshita'; 'Joanne Luciano' > Cc: 'Jeremy Zucker'; 'Skinner, Karen ((NIH/NIDA)) [E]'; 'Eric > Neumann'; 'public-semweb-lifesci hcls' > Subject: RE: Size estimates of current LS space (and Introductions) > > > Hi June, > > Thanks for the detailed response. One follow up comment (not for you) > below: > > > Could the scientific community perform this > > vetting and editing function itself, a la wikipedia? We have > > found that in general, this does not work. Many scientists > > refuse to correct or criticize colleagues directly in a public > forum. > > Could there be a mechanism in place that such contributions (taking > the time to politely edit, correct/modify content) would have some > brownie points with the establishment. I mean right now, what does a > person get for "selflessly" editing content? > > May be its time citations mechanisms start factoring in "blogosphere > activity" ... Just a thought. > > Regards, > Nigam. > > >
