Sounds like a great plan, I'd recommend MediaWiki and would love to be involved in maintaining this project
On 01/06/05, Matthew Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Ben O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
