On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Marcus Buck wrote:
>
> I just read the last category intersection discussion from After 65
> posts on that
> thread somebody posted a solution and nobody reacted.
>
They got exhausted?
(p m, c r)
--
--alnokta
___
I just read the last category intersection discussion from December to
see, what's the latest state of it. While doing that, I saw, that the
last message in that thread was this post from Roan Kattouw, providing
his extension. Oddly, nobody reacted on it. After 65 posts on that
thread somebody
my first suggestion would be to read the email responses that have already
been sent
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-January/041186.html and
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2009-January/041187.html
regards
mark
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Ankuj Gupta w
Hi
How can i contribute to wikimedia?I have worked in php and has good
understanding of MySQL databases.
--
Ankuj
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
> What is a translation but another type of annotation ?
> Thanks,
This *Could* be modeled like that in theory. But I don't see an easy way to
implement this with a low cost of transition. Basically, it would require
license info to be not handled via templates at all.
I don't see that happening
Hoi,
When we invest time in implementing time in the RDF extension, the chances
of the eventual support of Semantic MediaWiki are severely diminished. It
may take less time to get the RDF extension in shape, this is your hunch,
but it is a choice only made because it is quick. Not because it provid
Gerard Meijssen schrieb:
> Hoi,
> There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and the
> other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its usability
> is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.
SMW is of course an option for integrating metadata, but
Hoi,
There is RDF, there is Semantic MediaWiki. Why should one get a push and the
other not. Semantic MediaWiki is used on production websites. Its usability
is continuously being improved. No cobwebs there.
Having machine readable information is great, but would it not make more
sense to have hum
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
>
> I agree that it makes a lot of sense. But because it would be a big
> change, I fear that unless the lead developers show great enthusiasm
> for the idea, it will take a very long time to be accepted and
> completed. Whereas building an "add-on" tool can be faster to g
