Musings: Review of SchemaLogic: “The primary use for SchemaServer right now seems to focus on Controlled Vocabulary Management. […] Changes to a vocabulary can be made through an automated voting process.”
Has anyone used voting in a real life environment to manage changes to a controlled vocabulary?
Peter Van Dijck 
Kinda. Our client built their own Metadata Management software where there were owners, SMEs, and subscribers to various sections of the taxonomies. Subscribers were just FYI, SMEs actually knew what they were talking about, and owners made the final call. So not quite voting, but that is what it really came down to; or at least a form of consensus. Anca and I see a lot of promise in SchemaLogic for a use as a Metadata Change Management tool (and less on its data integration intended use).
The main problem that we saw in the situation that Brett describes above is the fact that we had to get many of these SME’s together into a room for a meeting to get them to start thinking about the vocabulary, and come to a consensus. We built a tool that enabled people to create, rename, and update vocabulary, but it didn’t have the “voting” concept built in, so people occasionally over-wrote each other. They also didn’t “check” regularly to see what was being done, and occasionally came in at the last minute to raise objections.
I suspect that a tool that had voting built in would drive people to be more interested in following the vocabulary and changes that occurred, and allowed them to weigh in without making come to a meeting.
Anyway, I’m trying to find a client who wants to use SchemaLogic, so I may soon have a report on the usefulness and feasibily of voting for controlled vocabulary management.