Stars!

Inspired by TBL Star rating system, OAM has devised its own rating schema:

(See also guidance notes on how to use the star system at the bottom of this page)

 
*		    Project funded with taxpayers money has a website

    **      The project website proactively publishes project information, including
      how is   funding allocated, how decisions are made , or at least some of it
      (see the proactive information model by ICO UK)

   ***
     The project has a webpage listing all its Open Access knowledge resources
     delivered with public funding (papers, vocabularies, diagrams, specifications,
     rules, code etc)


****    Each resource has a unique web address/URI 

*****   Each  project resource has a unique URI and adopts open standards and 
                appropriate knowledge sharing representation formalism and notation*


****** Project shares primary/raw datasets

  

* See the table below as an example of appropriate representation formalism and notation in:
    NY, USA ©2011Toward a semantic vocabulary for systems engineering, Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics ACM New York

Knowledge Sharing in Systems Engineering
                                 
GUIDANCE ON HOW TO RANK WEBSITES USING THE STAR SYSTEM

The star system proposed above serves purely as a guideline to assess and heuristically measure (rule of thumb) the level of adoption of
Knowledge Sharing and Open Access practices.

It is suggested that a ranking can be calculated by 'adding' the number of stars cumulatively. The lowest rank is zero (no stars)
The highest rank is 22  (has all the stars)

NOTE: THE SIXTH STAR WAS ADDED 3 AUGUST 2011, AUDITS CARRIED OUT BEFORE THIS DATE ONLY HAVE A MAX OF 16 STARS
(hope we got the arithmetic right)

For example: project1has  a website =  1 star
publishes proactive information = 2 stars
each resources has a unique URL = 3 stars
The project rank according to the star system is 6

EXCEPTIONS:  IF however a project does not fall into any of the categories above, for example, a project has no webpage, but
one paper is accessible/findable with a unique URI, the auditor can assign an 'arbitrary' number of stars, for example one star, if only
one paper is found (but no website, nor project page, nor other resources) the auditor can assign one  or more star (up to three or four stars, but not cumulative)
However, the auditor should make a note in the 'comment' slot that this project was awarded x number of stars arbitrarily based on one or two
resources retrieved, and not based on the standard criteria for assigning stars as per the schema above
 


Comments