I've taken the comments and munged them into the following text (please continue to comment) - MattH
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A resource for aggregating and describing online structured and semistructured content - especially that which is freely available for research/prototype purposes. The goal is to provide a resource that helps people easily find needed data resources and which explains how to use them. 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). The wiki will be organized to provide short paths to resources, not long articles with buried links, though there will be a place for detailed descriptions of data sources/gotchas/use cases, etc. The wiki will be fully open - anyone can contribute. It should be as simple as wikipedia - you can contribute without even logging in. The wiki will provide a page linking to applications that use the data referenced in the wiki (organized/indexed by the resources they use and possibly by some other taxonomies). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 6/1/05, Ben Metcalfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
