pcplantdb

[Chad Knepp <pyg@galatea.org>]

Stephanie Gerson writes:
 > > Richard Morris wrote:
 > > 
 > > The disadvantage is that we'll end up with
 > > more fragmented data. There won't be the (current) definitive version of
 > > the dataset for a particular plant. Instead there will be
 > > a loose collection of datachunks.
 > 
 > HMM.  DO USERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SCRUBBING THROUGH AND DOING SOME
 > TIDYING UP?  (DO THEY DO THAT WITH WIKIPEDIA?)  BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT 
 > WOULD
 > BE NICE FOR THE DATA TO BE COHESIVE...
 > *S

This is an important point to understand and something I responded to
in part earlier but could stand more clarification.

My proposed data model would allow for multiple versions of data for
any element in the database.  Each version would be submitted, edited,
and possibly deleted by its author/owner.  Although these authors
would not be able to edit or delete information by other authors, they
would have the power to judge the quality of other authors
information.  By stating that this information is either good/helpful
or not (moderation), these multiple different versions of the data
become rated as to their quality.  Upon display, the versions of data
that are judged to be more correct (higher moderation score) are give
display priority, placing them nearer the top of the page, etc.  Low
scoring (or possibly negative scoring) may not display at all without
following an additional link.

This is very different from Wikipedia and other models that have a
notion of definitive/objective information and only one "correct"
entry for any element.

I think that the model I'm proposing is a good choice for the sort of
data we are handling because it's nice to have a second (and third)
opinion about plant characteristics, uses, and culture.  I think this
will make even more sense when/if we include more abstract elements as
well. 

-- 
Chad Knepp
python -c 'import base64;print base64.decodestring("cHlnQGdhbGF0ZWEub3Jn")'