[pcplantdb] needing direction
pyg at galatea.org
Tue Mar 29 16:34:07 EST 2005
Richard Morris writes:
> Chad Knepp wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > Well, I'm currently feeling highly motivated to hack piw and I
> > actually don't feel like I know what I should be working on now.
> > Well, I think I should be implementing relationships, but many things
> > about them are still not clear to me. I'll send out another email of
> > questions soon. In the mean time I can think of a number of other
> > things to do but I also need some guidance.
> First thing for me is to see dev.permaculture.info upto date.
> i.e. a warts and all version of where your at.
dev.permaculture.info is current. The latest changes are edit and
delete of comments. Look at plant=4433 for some examples or make your
own with the accounts "Test User" and "Test Two" both have password of
"password". Try to hack other accounts if you can.
> > One of the things at the top of my list is expanding the level of user
> > contribution to plants (creating new ones and adding/editing data) and
> > other elements of the dataset. This would be done as discussed by my
> > proposed data model. I feel that my data/security model has gotten
> > pretty widespread support and unless I hear serious concerns about it
> > soon I'm going to suggest that we consider it a decision.
> Yes, go for that. Seems like a good thing to do while your energys up.
> Leave relationships out for a bit.
> One of the
> > implications though is that the current dataset needs to "be owned".
> > I suggested that this be an uneditable account under of the name
> > "PFAF/Ken Fern" (Rich is this name ok?).
> Names fine.
> All of this is pretty
> > straight forward except for the 6 elements of the plant labeled
> > Cultural Notes, Propagation Notes, Known Hazards, Edible Uses,
> > Medicinal Uses, and Other Uses. My question is should this become one
> > comment, six, three (Uses, Culture, Hazards), or some other
> > arrangement.
> I'm keen of having sections of data. So its posible to group
> all comments on edible uses together. Also so its posible
> to filter out sections from the display reports.
I'm hoping that a norm will develop of people replying to comments and
keeping a threaded discussion going under the sections Uses, Culture,
Yes, it's on my personal list of desired features to have preferences
include report customization. This is a pretty easy feature to add.
> While I'm in process of moving these comments how would
> > folks feel about doing the XMLizing of the  style references while
> > I'm at it. I would be writing one-off custom scripts to transform the
> > data anyway and a little regex magic would just be more fun ;-)
> Sounds good.
> > I'm open to projects/directions other things as well such as
> > implementing a moderation system (need more discussion though),
> For me moderation is a low priority. It will be some time
> when we really get sufficient quantity of data to necesitate any form of
> moderation. In the slashdot system it started with no moderation,
> then sysadmin moderation, then user moderation as the level of
> contributions grew. I'm inclide to follow a similar path
> i.e. implementing stuff when we need it.
My take as well. I wasn't thinking that moderation might not even
make it into the Threshold iteration. On the other hand moderation
should be pretty easy to implement.
> > code
> > clean up inc. client/server packaging split, locales (more
> > discussion), somebody explain relationships to me, etc. Anyway, I'm
> > putting this out to my advisory board and need some direction. I
> > haven't worked since last Tuesday and crazy thing I'm all excited
> > really feel like doing something.
> One thing I'd be very keen to see is mixing in the tanplant data.
> I know the guy who submitted it would be keen to see his data live on
> the web. Its also technically chalanging in how we can mix the two data
> sets. This seems to fit well with the comment idea. Think of this as
> another large batch of comments. (It would be OK to miss out some fields
> if clashes emerge).
Well, I was hoping that when authorship features where implemented,
that someone [else] would add the data. Having the server seperated
from the client would allow xml-rpc custom clients to add datasets
such as this.
I think that our dataset should be able to accommodate all pertinent
info, if not we have some schema work to do.
python -c 'import base64;print base64.decodestring("cHlnQGdhbGF0ZWEub3Jn")'
More information about the pcplantdb