Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

pcplantdb - Re: [pcplantdb] 0.2.0

pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: pcplantdb

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Morris <webmaster@pfaf.org>
  • To: Permaculture Plant Database <pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [pcplantdb] 0.2.0
  • Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:35:47 +0100

Chad Knepp wrote:

One of the things I kind of forgot to mention is that I would like to
have a 0.x.0 release about every month or so.

Sounds good. Might need a lot of build tags!

How much time do we
have anyway? IIRC dispersal was Sept.?

Thats what I beleive.

... so we probably have until
then or so? I'm starting to feel pressure to finish our commitments
to Threshold in time. This summer is going to be a busy one for me as
it is.

> Display Synonyms for plants.
> > Display habitats for plants.
>
> Create a habitat objects (similar to Uses)
> > Display Native Range.

This is all already displayed in the [first] summary paragraph.

Whoopse missed it.

> Markup book references, so clickable.

On track to occur when the PFAF notes move to comment/topic format.

Doing this is what I consider central task for 0.2.0

> Display (Search results)
> ------------------------
> > Allow browsing after first 100 plants.

I'm not understanding this. This is possible but with a 100 results
per page maximum.

Similar to issue 14.

> Allow alphabetical listing. (User preference)

Ok, easy to do, but not IMO that useful/important. Put in the tracker
so I don't forget.

Have done.

> Comments
> --------
> > Allow comments per section. So its posible to add a comment for edible uses.

This will happen when the Notes become comments/topics... authors can
add info on the subject.

Cool.

> Allow new Botanical Synonyms to be entered. (With Author)
> > Allow new Common Names to be entered. (Poss with Language/Region)

My preference would be to push creating and editing plant objects to
0.3.0 if you don't mind.

Yes thats fine. Need a 0.3.0 build tag!

> Allow links to other sites to be entered.

This can already be done in the comments... did you mean
something/somewhere else.

Broken in comments, see issue18.

What I've done with comments of PFAF is have a text box where they can type in a URL. Basically a) encourages linking
b) partially prevents malformed links
c) makes is easier for users.

> Provide a Back button so user can return to plant after entering comment.

Actually after you submit a comment you should be directed to the
plant you commented on with your comment displayed.

Good.

> Sections
> --------
> > Allow a new section to be created (not necessarily by anonomous/logged > in uses)
> Mainly so I could expand things to allow tanplants data fields to be > added for example
> COMR - Commercial application of this plant.
> Happy to do this by direct SQL queries (probably easiest for me).
> > This will probably need a bit of discussion on the list.

Real schema changes are d efinitely 0.3.0, although I think some of
these are comment/topic material. If we have an edible uses section
why not a commercial uses one?

Yes, happy to defer to 0.3.0.

> Relationships
> -------------
> > Allow creation of non plant objects. Allready have a uses objects.

Not so sure about this. One of the difficulties of a RDBMS is that
you can't really just add generic objects without some prep work.
Bear mentioned an interesting alternative way back in March, and
although interesting/intriguing I think it's a 2.0 idea.
Agree. 0.3.0

My object model is that a lot of the [loosely typed] data can/will be
captured by the comment/topic object.

> Allow links back from non plant objects to linking plants.
>
> Specifically if click on use=Gum, it would be cool if
> that page displayed all the plants which can be used for Gum.

This sounds like a search function. More discussion necessary I
think... not really 0.2.0 material

Agree. 0.3.0

Sounds like its all in hand. Might need a 0.3.0 tag!

Rich







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page