I would like to add: Wiki should include a showcase section where people can showcase their work (perhaps catagorised/tagsonomy'd?).
Backchannel/Discussion about the page is nice -- for me, the way MediaWiki handles this is superb. If I was going to build such a site (and I'd love to, but perhaps a little odd considering I work on backstage!) I would build it around MediaWiki. Ben > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James > Sent: 01 June 2005 15:50 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [backstage] Resources > > > 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
