the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :)
I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing
i tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works for the majority. i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a wished reputation (it is better some visible reputation than no visible reputation, maybe :).
i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with.[...] yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use...
but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy.
one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps som
meaning giving ?
through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced) hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those.. is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to be generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions
Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do no
uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic human values maybe.... or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things.. or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it has some dialects by longitude and latitude :)