People are building dictionaries and ontologies all over the place today. For example, researchers at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid’s School of Computing are working on an original system for building multilingual dictionaries based on multiple term equivalences using what they are calling “universal words” – which will have huge impact to geospatial meaning. They claim system reliability and accuracy is 88%.
A HUGE effort impacting the entire design, architecture, contracting, construction, and facility management cycle is the Construction Specification Institute Project Construction Industry Terminology Initiative Task Team CITITT, refer to the article Words and What They Mean by chairman Gregg Borchelt PE FCSI.
What a call for participation. What huge kind of trumpet is needed for the participants to hear? What a showdown this could be between the subject matter experts to really explain building science. If so, what is the best way to handle scientific disputes or conflicts between publications?
Accuracy in scientific publications are tricky to begin with. For example, in the Economist article cited above, along with evidence in the maps of science, there are legitimate concerns about incorrect findings end up in print ~ then those findings hanging around as accepted fact for too long.
There needs to be better ways to compare concurrent and conflicting definitions in these dictionaries and ontologies. They suggest that, as the marginal cost of publishing a lot more material is minimal on the internet, all research that meets a certain quality threshold should be published online. Preference might even be given to studies that show negative results or those with the highest quality of study methods and interpretation, regardless of the results.
How about a game or challenge? The construction industry terminology smack down.