Claudia Müller-Birn, 12/10/2016 21:11: http://www.eagle-network.eu/wiki/index.php/Main_Page , as documented on http://wikiba.se/projects/ . You can ask on this list if you have questions. Nemo

Here some old pointers to our TDWG - biodiversity - ViBRANT work from 2013: http://www.gbif.org/resource/80862 https://mbgserv18.mobot.org/ocs/index.php/tdwg/2013/paper/view/545 creating this SMW wiki: http://terms.tdwg.org/wiki/ (with a SKOS vocab management system) My own assessment: there are serious limitation in SMW, which can be worked with (e.g. we use an in-wiki xslt script to post-process), but having a more powerful system like wikidata would be most welcome. However, to my present knowledge, the wikidata/wikibase based system would have to have a custom programmed user interface to make it usable, something the great semantic form extensions in SMW already make possible. Best gregor

Hi Claudia , you wrote: I recently collected a list of Open Source web applications to create Knowledge Organization Systems - including SMW and Wikibase: http://coli-conc.gbv.de/publications/tr7.html (=http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.61262) The list lacks https://pypi.python.org/pypi/atramhasis and I omitted applications with major focus on terminology management for translation (aka termbases). Both SWM and Wikibase support creation of knowledge bases without strict schemata. The downside of their flexibility is a lack of constraints and workflows that must be build on to of them with additional tools. Choice of the right software for creating structured vocabularies very much depends on the types and requirements of your vocabularies. If you want some control, e.g. suggested and approved changes, hierachies, controll of synonyms and homonyms and your vocabulary is a "classical" knowledge organization system such as a authority files, thesaurus or classifications, you may better try a dedicated software such as the editors I found. I have not evaluated these applications so I'am also curious about experiences with iQvoc, TemaTres, VocBench, Ginco, and atramhasis. If your vocabulary is more going to be an ontology then Semantic MediaWiki or Wikibase (possibly also Web Protégé or VoCol) may be required with additional customization. I'd first ask what you actually mean by "ontology" - many so called ontologies are actually simply extended thesauri, classifications or even dump term list that could also be managed in a shared Google Spreadsheet. My own experience in collaborative creating structured vocabularies mainly focus small controlled list (=no need for dedicated software) and on Wikidata (see http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/paper2.pdf). The latter is a special case because you must involve in the existing Wikimedia communities with all of its benefits (motivated collaborators, real-world entities connected to other vocabularies, fame and glory...) and downsides (less control, possibly tiresome discussions...). I prefer this approach of harvesting and extending vocabularies from Wikidata because the vocabularies are (or at least expected to be) founded in actual use of terms by their connection to Wikidata articles instead building yet another ivory tower ontology. That's all for now, looking forward for more uses cases and experiences, Jakob Voß