I would also add to this:
1. A well structured table which references resources with simple
descriptions and an off shoot to wiki pages which an be used to describe
and further explain information within this "resource" Im not overly
keen on wading through a lot of content to find the resource, I would
prefer to search for the resource and then get wiki with it :)
2. Allow for user contributed wiki pages which describe how to do
certain things. There have been numerous posts on ways to obtain and
use RSS content.
3. The main thing for me is allowing the user to freely contribute
without going through hurdles to do so.
I would also like to reinforce matts point about other api's etc. Good
external referencing to good articles relating to technologies such as
XSL, XPATH, XQUERY are important. These technologies are begining to
become mainstream and they should be encouraged within this development
area, especially because of the main medium which a lot of the content
is being put out in (XML). They are naturally paired technologies and
butchering XML to work with Smarty or TTK is a shame.
Matthew Hurst wrote:
Here is a stick in the sand as to what we want to the wiki to contain:
A resource for aggregating and describing online structured and
semistructured content - especially that which is freely available
for research/prototype purposes. Specifically, this wiki will contain
information about two types of computer readable data - that which is
continuously
updated (e.g. rss feeds, traffic data, etc.), and that which is static
(e.g. geographic databases). In addition, the wiki will be a repository
for information about apis and other applications which may
be used with this type of data (e.g. google maps).
Please feel free to mod as appropriate - this is just to ge the ball
rolling as to what we want in this resource.
MattH
On 6/1/05, Duncan Barclay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Wikicities might be good, but there are some things that I don't like
about it, such as the adverts at the side and adverts for wikicities all
over the place. I also feel that there should be slightly more control
over a wiki than there would be there (eg, the ability to edit the
database if it goes completely out of hand, and also to back up the
database).
I am fairly sure there have been several people in the past who have
said they would be willing to put a wiki up for it (or in Jim's case, an
offer for funding/programming for it) and I would also be willing to, so
if Ben can't get anything nice sorted out, I feel we should go for a
wiki hosted by a user of this mailing list. It may also help the
backstage.bbc.co.uk admin to persuade other people in the BBC that
people here are serious about it.
With regard to invading a wiki that already exists, there are problems,
such as finding another wiki and also the possibility that it wouldn't
have the same aim as a dedicated wiki would.
Duncan
Matthew Hurst wrote:
Jim,
You make excellent points. I agree about the accountability issues and
that the freedom of having it outside the bbc + the general interests/non
backstage interests that come into play. So yes, I now think my original
suggestion was wrong - let's go for something external.
However, I think that the backstage area could link to whatever it is that
we come up with - a single link to a central resource. (All this assuming
that the backstage people don't come back with an answer that allows the
beeb to host it in some legally sandboxed manner).
Does anyone know about wikicities? That could be a candidate location -
have a look. The more I look at it, the more I think this might be the
place to go...
http://www.wikicities.org
Matt
On 6/1/05, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think this is a big issue though. The BBC is well known for having
strict controls on content, linking to other sites etc, even so far as
message board posts having to be verified. The idea of a wiki is great
but before the backstage crew implements we should know the rules
first. What we dont want it an official one and user based one which
forks off because of the limitations on the official one.
Personally, I feel what the BBC is doing is excellent however I am
hestitant to see a resource catalogue become a BBC thing exclusively
when at the moment most of the prototypes are using multiple sources for
data and technology. IF the BBC host it will have to, in some way, be
accountable for the links and I dont think they will be able to link to
content they know breaks there own terms and conditions. Any resource
must be free of any issues about linking and content otherwise it is
already broken before is begins.
The questions for me are:
1) Is there an exisiting developers area (wiki, web whatever) which
this kind of thing can be tacked onto - would it be better to contribute
to an exsiting community rather than to start from nothing?
2) Is this type of developing, specifically XML resources and
resource binding something which deserves a wider, non BBC tag? I would
be willing to donate some dosh and programming time to setup a host etc
which a group of us could run.
I hope this isnt taken in a negative stance!
Jim.
Ben Metcalfe wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Such vandalism, as you can appreciate, is our biggest
concern on this
front. But will keep you all informed.
I'm not sure vandalism should be *too* much of a concern -
wikis are becoming the norm in developer communities. For
example, see the Java.net community wiki at:
Sorry, I should confirm: "our" as in 'the BBC'. I personally don't have
any problem with hooking up a wiki - I'd love to get a bit of mediawiki
action on the backstage server!
My two cents is that the benefits of wikis in community building
outweight the disadvantages.
Totally agree -- which is why I'm doing everything I can to get this
agreed.
Ben Metcalfe :: backstage.bbc.co.uk
