On May 31, 2005, at 1:51 PM, MacKenzie Smith wrote:
> Hmmm. It might be useful, but we aren't doing that here, and I'm
> having a hard time figuring out how you would know whether a given
> item was peer reviewed
> (without just asking a human that is). It's usually not indicated
> in the metadata, although you might be able to infer it in certain
> cases (i.e. came from a publishers
> website, or contains publication metadata from a journal known to
> be peer-reviewed). Did you have a mechanism in mind to decide that?
We're in the beginning stage of this and haven't given much thought
to how this would work. I had figured that an initial restriction
by domain name would be sufficient to start with. Keying off "I'm
ok" metadata could lead to it being abused or the truth stretched and
doesn't seem like the right way to denote this.
Perhaps using some type of service to vet the site would be used?
Connotea does something similar by pulling additional information
from sites it knows about:
http://www.connotea.org/guide#autocollection
Thanks for your quick reply.
Erik
>
> MacKenzie
>
> At 01:32 PM 5/31/2005 -0400, Erik Hatcher wrote:
>
>> In my project, we're going to begin Semantic Bank integration very
>> soon and leverage the fine work you've done (and contribute back to
>> it as we go, of course!). So you'll be seeing lots more of me around
>> here and on the dev list :)
>>
>> One of the things that we want to build in is a facility to constrain
>> what can be collected to only peer-reviewed "rubber stamped"
>> objects. Or perhaps the constraint would be on the objects our
>> exhibit-building system uses rather than the constraint being on the
>> collection side of things.
>>
>> I suspect this is a common desire in the educational world. How are
>> folks addressing this situation? Are there some conventions/
>> standards in place for this sort of thing?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Erik
>>
>
>
Received on Tue May 31 2005 - 18:28:07 EDT