pcplantdb

[Richard Morris <webmaster@pfaf.org>]

Chad Knepp wrote:

> One of the things I kind of forgot to mention is that I would like to
> have a 0.x.0 release about every month or so.  

Sounds good. Might need a lot of build tags!

> How much time do we
> have anyway?  IIRC dispersal was Sept.?

Thats what I beleive.

> ... so we probably have until
> then or so?  I'm starting to feel pressure to finish our commitments
> to Threshold in time.  This summer is going to be a busy one for me as
> it is.

>  > Display Synonyms for plants.
>  > 
>  > Display habitats for plants.
>  >
>  > Create a habitat objects (similar to Uses)
>  > 
>  > Display Native Range.
>
> This is all already displayed in the [first] summary paragraph.

Whoopse missed it.
>  > Markup book references, so clickable.
>
> On track to occur when the PFAF notes move to comment/topic format.
Doing this is what I consider central task for 0.2.0

>  > Display (Search results)
>  > ------------------------
>  > 
>  > Allow browsing after first 100 plants.
>
> I'm not understanding this.  This is possible but with a 100 results
> per page maximum.

Similar to issue 14.

>  > Allow alphabetical listing. (User preference)
>
> Ok, easy to do, but not IMO that useful/important.  Put in the tracker
> so I don't forget.

Have done.
>  > Comments
>  > --------
>  > 
>  > Allow comments per section. So its posible to add a comment for edible uses.
>
> This will happen when the Notes become comments/topics... authors can
> add info on the subject.

Cool.

>  > Allow new Botanical Synonyms to be entered. (With Author)
>  > 
>  > Allow new Common Names to be entered. (Poss with Language/Region)
>
> My preference would be to push creating and editing plant objects to
> 0.3.0 if you don't mind.

Yes thats fine. Need a 0.3.0 build tag!

>  > Allow links to other sites to be entered.
>
> This can already be done in the comments... did you mean
> something/somewhere else.

Broken in comments, see issue18.

What I've done with comments of PFAF is have a text box where they can 
type in a URL. Basically a) encourages linking
b) partially prevents malformed links
c) makes is easier for users.

>  > Provide a Back button so user can return to plant after entering comment.
>
> Actually after you submit a comment you should be directed to the
> plant you commented on with your comment displayed.

Good.

>  > Sections
>  > --------
>  > 
>  > Allow a new section to be created (not necessarily by anonomous/logged 
>  > in uses)
>  > Mainly so I could expand things to allow tanplants data fields to be 
>  > added for example
>  > COMR - Commercial application of this plant.
>  > Happy to do this by direct SQL queries (probably easiest for me).
>  > 
>  > This will probably need a bit of discussion on the list.
>
> Real schema changes are d efinitely 0.3.0, although I think some of
> these are comment/topic material.  If we have an edible uses section
> why not a commercial uses one?

Yes, happy to defer to 0.3.0.

>  > Relationships
>  > -------------
>  > 
>  > Allow creation of non plant objects. Allready have a uses objects.
>
> Not so sure about this.  One of the difficulties of a RDBMS is that
> you can't really just add generic objects without some prep work.
> Bear mentioned an interesting alternative way back in March, and
> although interesting/intriguing I think it's a 2.0 idea.  
Agree. 0.3.0

> My object model is that a lot of the [loosely typed] data can/will be
> captured by the comment/topic object.
>
>  > Allow links back from non plant objects to linking plants.
>  >
>  > Specifically if click on use=Gum, it would be cool if
>  > that page displayed all the plants which can be used for Gum.
>
> This sounds like a search function.  More discussion necessary I
> think... not really 0.2.0 material

Agree. 0.3.0

Sounds like its all in hand. Might need a 0.3.0 tag!

Rich