Permaculture Database

[jedd <jedd@progsoc.org>]

On Saturday 24 March 2007 3:40 pm, Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
> I haven't seen any indication in this list that this has happened.

 Nor have I, though the list did follow a similar evolutionary route
 as the other 'design a web site for a permaculture organisation'
 list I was on a year or two ago.

> > And what was the consensus on using a wiki not just for devel discussion
> > but also for the database itself (à la PFAF's new wiki)?
>
> I don't think there was a consensus on that even though many liked that
> concept, myself included.

 Wikis are very limited, but may meet the [still unstated] requirements
 of the various interested parties.  

 But yes, from my perspective they are way too limited and would
 certainly not meet my requirements.

 A CMS framework may suffice, with a wiki front end to do the meta-
 design of the rest of the system ... the trap there would be if people
 start believing that the wiki *is* the system.  This would leads us
 to yet another repository of unattached and unreliable data.

 I echo Lawrence's congratulations on landing a nice-sounding gig.

> I would like to see this project take shape, regardless of how it is done.
> Something needs to be made available online soon, hopefully before the
> Summer, even if its an incomplete, function-limited work.

 Happenstance!

 This is exactly the kind of problem that I have with the afore-
 mentioned PFAF site (and many others, before PFAFers get paranoid).

 Hemispherical parochialism is one thing that renders the majority of
 books, web sites, and indeed list postings less than a delight to
 work with.  Certainly there's lots of information out there, but the
 presence of unmodifiable errors makes my regular 'passive' visits to
 PFAF, as an example, a tad frustrating.  Compare and contrast
 Wikipedia, for example.

> My vote goes for creating an interactive Permaculture Guild Database,
> something that reveals and qualifies relationships between elements in a
> permaculture system.

 I think I've mentioned this before, but the last time I went through
 the requirements for 'my' system, I got to about a 4 or 5 dimension
 array of data - potentially the ugliest nightmare of databases - and
 that was just to meet my fairly modest requirements.

 If there's genuine renewed interest I can spend some time jotting
 down my thoughts on what I think a 'all things to all people' system
 should provide.  I'd certainly be interested in comparably detailed
 specs from others .. so we can quickly work out how disparate our
 respective expectations are.

 Jedd.