pcplantdb

[Richard Morris <webmaster@pfaf.org>]

Chad Knepp wrote:

> John Schinnerer writes:
>  > 
>  > I missed something re the Ken Fern reference...please enlighten me
>  > about him...?
>
> Ken Fern did most/all of the data collection in the PFAF dataset,
> somewhere around 8-10 years of [uncompensated] work...  Actually
> Richard Morris probably has a more accurate answer, but he's pretty
> much one of my heros.

Just about correct. There have been a lot of others who
have also helped with PFAF.

>  > The 'front end' is what the user sees when they go to some web site
>  > that provides access to the back end.  Programmers create a 'front
>  > end' using some typically visually oriented model (windows, forms,
>  > icons, buttons, mouse point-and-click, graphical representations
>  > and so on) to help an end user do what they want with the back end
>  > - such as ask for and receive information.

We might need a slightly more involved model
with
        Client - the program running on the user computer
                        (a web browser, java applet, flash or
                        something a bit more complicated)
        The server - the thing sitting at the end of http://whatever/
                         whats been described above as the front end.
                        (some cgi/php/perl/apache stuff)
        The backend database - where the data's stored.
                        (mySQL)

Generally the client will talk to the server and the
server will talk to the backend. As mentioned elsewhere
there should be good interdependace of the three.

Using plain html, the client will be the web browser.
and the server will create the appropriate data for the client.

For a richer client (needed for touchgraph) then some other
program will be needed on the users computer.

> I think Eden represents a good design.  It could be extended or
> completely rewritten; there really isn't that much to it... I wrote it
> in less than a week. 

> One of the prominently missing features is any
> form of collaborative input/editing, which I think is highly important
> but a tricky thing to do well.

I had a look at what phpwiki does and it really quite simple.
The main data stored for each edit is a complete snapshot
of the page. SO there is a high degree of redundant
information. Theres a table something like

Plant ID | Version number | Date    | Page Data         | Author Info
123      |      1         |   1/1/01 | Hello world      | Rich
123      |      2         |   2/2/02 | Hello world, how are you today.
                                                        | Chad

> I personally am not satisfied with any wiki I've seen so far.

John:
> I personally can't make much sense, even less any efficient use,
> of most wikis I've seen so far, alas including the PC wiki
> (which is also broken display-wise, in different ways,
> on most browsers I've looked at it with - GIGO...).

Yes I do agree that many wiki leave much to be desired.
I don't think PhpWiki which is what the pc wiki is using
is that good an implination, (the php bit slows it down).

For the best in wiki's I'd recomend everyone to have a look
at wikipedia I'd guess its closest to how I'd like things
to turn out. everything is also quite nice.

Good points of wiki's:
        very simple to add data
        very simple markup with [Link] for a link
        very flexiable in how things are link together

Bad points:
        Lack of semantic markup, for us
        it would make it dificult to pick out
        the height of a plant if it was just in vanilla
        wiki.

        Lack of editorial control. Far to easy to
        add data leaving many pages being very messy.

>  As John implies, a Guild Design Application
> could easily be a front end for an adequately developed back end.

Yep.

> In terms of the grant proposal, I've reread it and although the title
> seems to, IMO, overemphasizes the element of guild design, most of the
> rest of the proposal seems right on target with my own vision.  
>
> I do have a strong philosophical objection to participating in any
> project creating intellectual property where the product is not free
> as in open source (google for "reasonable use").  Initially my
> objections, and my reluctance to participate, where around the choice
> of Thinkmap as a core part of the project.  

> Although that has changed
> there is still the item of licensing images from PFAF.  I am willing
> to buy the images from PFAF but I am not OK with encumbering the
> project with non-free IP.  For that matter, I think it would be a nice
> token to buy the PFAF dataset (even though it is free already) to
> compensate them for their efforts.

I appreciate these concerns and it would be nice to have
an IP free image collection. I've think I've explained
before pfaf's dire financial state (£100K in debt, £6K income)
our need for income (primarilly through an added
value database with images not available online).
Its a tricky one for us and we haven't really discussed
this much with ourselves.

Maybe the grant could help the construction of a free IP
image collection.

        Rich
--
Plants for a Future: 7000 useful plants
Web:   http://www.pfaf.org/ same as http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/pfaf/
Post:  1 Lerryn View, Lerryn, Lostwithiel, Cornwall, PL22 0QJ
Tel:     01208 872 963 / 0845 458 4719  
Email: webmaster@pfaf.org
PFAF electronic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf