pcplantdb

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>]

Stephanie Gerson wrote:

> 1.  Thanks to both Lawrence and JohnH for volunteering to be webmasters. 
> Who's it going to be?  It appears that both of you are qualified - perhaps
> more a matter of time and commitment?

I didn't realy intent my offer to be taken seriously. John H is FAR more 
qualified for
this job than I and I expect the requirements will far exceed my skills. I 
would like to offer
the items I listed earlier if he/webmaster can use them in the site - more a 
role of providing content,
somewhat unique in form.


> 7.  Rich asked, "This is really the central question. Where do we position
> ourselves on the flatDB -- wiki spectrum?"  I say we position ourselves at
> whatever spot on the spectrum is most conducive to acheiving our goal.  And if

Right on! Rich's innovative ideas are always inspiring and I will always 
support them.
I like cutting edge technology for the Web so I can be counted on to skirt 
the path of
conservatism and moderation..... most of the time.

> it requires innovation on our part, so be it!  As I've said before, this

Amen!

> project will be valuable not only because of its informational content, but
> also because of the manner in which information is presented and interacted
> with.  PIW could be a model for virtual cross-pollination of information...

Right, right, right! Well said Lady Stephanista.

> 8.  Schema stuff looks great.  I'm fascinated.  And I assume now would be a
> good time to write up my vision for the UI/User Experience?  Just to see how
> it matches up with the code.  Also, I did go through this thread and got the
> gist - but Chad, do you think you could write up a short non-technical summary
> of how you're organizing the information?  Not only for me to read, but so
> that other non-techies (i.e. Scott) can understand and contribute.  We could
> even post this on the PIW website (which needs more content anyway).  What do

Great proposal.

> you think?  Not to give you an extra workload...
>
> S'more work for you (or anyone else): can we (or did we already) devise a list
> of PC-centric characteristics that we're going to allow users to search by?  I
> remember a thread regarding "attributes" a while back, but it might be nice to
> create an actual list of attributes, and post it on the website as well -
> welcoming feedback.

Also a very good idea.

> Another idea.  It would be pretty fantastic if you could sort results by more
> than one attribute, i.e. sort by edibility and water needs.  A friend once

Enter a list of (system-accepted) attributes in a dialog box along with 
numerical
scoring of importance of each to users doing search - this might produce 
results easier to sort throuh
and interpret aand print off or save to file.

> told me about a 3-dimensional sorting scheme, where you could sort by 3
> attributes (x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis) and see the information mapped onto a
> cube.  Is this useful?  Interesting?  Nonsense?  

I can see a 3 dimensional sort of attributes with each dimension representing 
a tree of information - you could pick
a branch/twig/leaf from each dimension rather than each dimension 
representing a linear array of data.

LL
--
L.F.London
lfl@intrex.net
http://market-farming.com
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech