Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

pcplantdb - Re: [pcplantdb] report

pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: pcplantdb

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: webmaster@pfaf.org
  • To: pcplantdb <pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [pcplantdb] report
  • Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:14:58 +0000

Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
Could you explain "the Wiki model" as you envision it.
I assume the comparison is between a true relational database
(Sql/Php, Zope, etc.) and a conventional wiki (i.e. wikipedia, pmwiwki,
phpwiki, tikiwiki).
And how does a true CMS (like the nice one Chad set up or maybe Tikiwiki or
more elaborate models) fit into all this?

Chad
Actually I think the wiki model is [the most] appropriate for
subjective types of information. Very technical things such as plant
data are fairly objective (subject to local variances but that's
objective as well) and IMO ideal to the data model I've implemented.
It's highly analogous to the way modern science works. Scientists do
research, publish papers, and the collective peer consciousness
*moderates up* papers that best describe reality.

Questions of aesthetics, morals, religion/philosophy, etc. can have
equally strong opposing ideas and peer moderation may be abused to
favor the majority opinion; although in a best case scenario the
clearest articulations of the ideas (even if opposing) will *rise to
the top*.

OK after some time editing wikipedia I'm a bit more familiar with strengths and weaknesses of the system. I'll explain a bit more about wikis and the MediaWiki implementation, which is rather nice.

In a wiki each page consists of a simplified form of html with an easier syntax. It allows headings
== A heading ==
=== A second level heading ===
paragraphs are just made with empty lines. Italic and bold
''italic'', '''bold'''. Lists are marked by a *
* First level list item
** Second level list item

This is all the basic formatting needed for most documents. The syntax is easier than html so its easier for new users to get involved. A low barrier to entry and a shallow learning curve are both very desirable features.

Fundamental to the wiki philosophy is the idea that anyone can edit the whole text. This can, and does work well. People have probably noticed that my posts have a high number of spelling and grammar mistakes, a wiki is ideal here as others with a better grasp of English than I
can correct all my mistakes. It allows the whole text to improve with time. On the other hand I tend to be better at things like categorizing articles, seeking out references etc. In general the process will tend to improve the article, each new edit tends to make the article better. If an edit detracts from the article then it is easy for some other editor to change the article back.

There are several features which help with the process.
(A bit of wiki slang an editor is anyone who edits a page)

Each article also has a talk-page. Here editors can discuss the article and propose changes, this allows consensus to occur without having the discussion on the main article. A recent discussion I had on a talk page led to the construction of a new article.

Registered users can have a watch list. Here changes to any pages which you have a particular interest in can be recorded. This allows
the user to quickly see what articles have changed and review the changes. Watchlists are one of the reasons why vandalism is quickly fixed as the vandalism can be quickly spotted and corrected.

Linking
-------

The wiki model allows easy linking, just include the name of an article in square brackets: [[Salix alba]] and the article will be linked. Very easy and probably better than the WikiWord syntax which required composition of two words with a capital in the middle. Such links are one directional.

There is also the concept of a category, categories allow a form of bi-directional links. For example the Permaculture article is a member of the Sustainable Agriculture category. This is indicated by adding a link [[Category:Sustainable agriculture]] to the Permaculture article.
Visiting the Sustainable Agriculture category will show all article in that category. The category system is very flexible, its not a hierarchal tree more a web of links, as time progresses the set of categories can alter as more articles are added and categories fill up. When they get too full a category can usually be split into two or more sub categories and the articles divided appropriately. Categories can be members of other categories which allows a topical map to be constructed.

Another mechanism templates is also very powerful. Templates work by a simple inclusion system, the code in template is just included in the article using the syntax {{templatename}}. These allow standard messages to be included. Templates can also have parameters, written as
{{templatename|parameter}} or {{templatename|paramname = value}}.
The templates themselves have a limited programing facility with if and foreach statements.

Templats allow a common format to be used. All plants use a taxobox to record names and classifications of plants, for example ragwort
has
{{Taxobox_begin | name = Ragwort}}
{{Taxobox_begin_placement }}
{{Taxobox_regnum_entry | taxon = [[Plant]]ae}}
{{Taxobox_divisio_entry | taxon = [[Flowering plant|Magnoliophyta]]}}
{{Taxobox_classis_entry | taxon = [[Dicotyledon|Magnoliopsida]]}}
{{Taxobox_ordo_entry | taxon = [[Asterales]]}}
{{Taxobox_familia_entry | taxon = [[Asteraceae]]}}
{{Taxobox subfamilia entry | taxon = [[Asteroideae]]}}
{{Taxobox tribus entry | taxon = Senecioneae}}
{{Taxobox_genus_entry | taxon = ''[[Senecio]]''}}
{{Taxobox_species_entry | taxon = '''''S. jacobea'''''}}
{{Taxobox_end_placement}}
{{Taxobox_section_binomial_botany| binomial_name = Senecio jacobaea| author =[[Carolus Linnaeus|L.]]}}
{{Taxobox_end}}
this will cause the information to be displayed as a nice table see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ragwort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_read_a_taxobox

Templates also work well with categories. For example a 'flora of' template could be defined to list a plant as part of the native flora of a particular country. For example we could used {{flora of|China}}
which would automatically place the plant in the category 'flora of China'. Most of the fields we are interested in could be represented as such templates {{Height|10}} {{Edible uses|bread}}.

There are some limitations of the template/category system. It is not possible to include additional info in a category link, for example any reference to why it is included or a rating as to how good a particular uses is. It works less well for numeric fields like height.

In RDF terms it does not allow a full triple [object|relationship|subject] [Budlia|food plant for|butterflies], but does come close.

In conclusion
-------------

The wiki model, in particular the MediaWiki implementation, covers
many of the features we need. It allows for extensible pages so new sections could easily be added without being limited by the underlying data structure. It has a powerful, flexible and extensible linking system which nearly meets our needs. Its also an out of the box system so little work to get it running. Out of interest there is a permaculture wiki city http://permawiki.wikicities.com/
but its rather empty at the moment.

Rich

--
Plants for a Future: 7000 useful plants
Web: http://www.pfaf.org/
Post: 1 Lerryn View, Lerryn, Lostwithiel, Cornwall, PL22 0QJ
Tel: 01208 872 963
Email: webweaver@pfaf.org
PFAF electronic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page