pcplantdb

[webmaster@pfaf.org]

Lawrence F. London, Jr. wrote:
> Could you explain "the Wiki model" as you envision it.
> I assume the comparison is between a true relational database
> (Sql/Php, Zope, etc.) and a conventional wiki (i.e. wikipedia, pmwiwki, 
> phpwiki, tikiwiki).
> And how does a true CMS (like the nice one Chad set up or maybe Tikiwiki or 
> more elaborate models) fit into all this?

Chad
> Actually I think the wiki model is [the most] appropriate for
> subjective types of information.  Very technical things such as plant
> data are fairly objective (subject to local variances but that's
> objective as well) and IMO ideal to the data model I've implemented.
> It's highly analogous to the way modern science works.  Scientists do
> research, publish papers, and the collective peer consciousness
> *moderates up* papers that best describe reality.
>
> Questions of aesthetics, morals, religion/philosophy, etc. can have
> equally strong opposing ideas and peer moderation may be abused to
> favor the majority opinion; although in a best case scenario the
> clearest articulations of the ideas (even if opposing) will *rise to
> the top*.

OK after some time editing wikipedia I'm a bit more familiar with 
strengths and weaknesses of the system. I'll explain a bit more about 
wikis and the MediaWiki implementation, which is rather nice.

In a wiki each page consists of a simplified form of html with an easier 
syntax. It allows headings
== A heading ==
=== A second level heading ===
paragraphs are just made with empty lines. Italic and bold
''italic'', '''bold'''. Lists are marked by a *
* First level list item
** Second level list item

This is all the basic formatting needed for most documents. The syntax 
is easier than html so its easier for new users to get involved. A low 
barrier  to entry and a shallow learning curve are both very desirable 
features.

Fundamental to the wiki philosophy is the idea that anyone can edit the 
whole text. This can, and does work well. People have probably noticed 
that my posts have a high number of spelling and grammar mistakes, a 
wiki is ideal here as others with a better grasp of English than I
can correct all my mistakes. It allows the whole text to improve with 
time. On the other hand I tend to be better at things like categorizing 
articles, seeking out references etc. In general the process will tend 
to improve the article, each new edit tends to make the article better. 
If an edit detracts from the article then it is easy for some other 
editor to change the article back.

There are several features which help with the process.
(A bit of wiki slang an editor is anyone who edits a page)

Each article also has a talk-page. Here editors can discuss the article 
and propose changes, this allows consensus to occur without having the 
discussion on the main article. A recent discussion I had on a talk page 
led to the construction of a new article.

Registered users can have a watch list. Here changes to any pages which 
you have a particular interest in can be recorded. This allows
the user to quickly see what articles have changed and review the 
changes. Watchlists are one of the reasons why vandalism is quickly 
fixed as the vandalism can be quickly spotted and corrected.

Linking
-------

The wiki model allows easy linking, just include the name of an article 
in square brackets: [[Salix alba]] and the article will be linked. Very 
easy and probably better than the WikiWord syntax which required 
composition of two words with a capital in the middle. Such links are 
one directional.

There is also the concept of a category, categories allow a form of 
bi-directional links. For example the Permaculture article is a member 
of the Sustainable Agriculture category. This is indicated by adding a 
link [[Category:Sustainable agriculture]] to the Permaculture article.
Visiting the Sustainable Agriculture category will show all article in 
that category. The category system is very flexible, its not a 
hierarchal tree more a web of links, as time progresses the set of 
categories can alter as more articles are added and categories fill up. 
When they get too full a category can usually be split into two or more 
sub categories and the articles divided appropriately. Categories can be 
members of other categories which allows a topical map to be constructed.

Another mechanism templates is also very powerful. Templates work by a 
simple inclusion system, the code in template is just included in the 
article using the syntax {{templatename}}. These allow standard messages 
to be included. Templates can also have parameters, written as
{{templatename|parameter}} or {{templatename|paramname = value}}.
The templates themselves have a limited programing facility with if and 
foreach statements.

Templats allow a common format to be used. All plants use a taxobox to 
record names and classifications of plants, for example ragwort
has
{{Taxobox_begin | name = Ragwort}}
{{Taxobox_begin_placement }}
{{Taxobox_regnum_entry | taxon = [[Plant]]ae}}
{{Taxobox_divisio_entry | taxon = [[Flowering plant|Magnoliophyta]]}}
{{Taxobox_classis_entry | taxon = [[Dicotyledon|Magnoliopsida]]}}
{{Taxobox_ordo_entry | taxon = [[Asterales]]}}
{{Taxobox_familia_entry | taxon = [[Asteraceae]]}}
{{Taxobox subfamilia entry | taxon = [[Asteroideae]]}}
{{Taxobox tribus entry | taxon = Senecioneae}}
{{Taxobox_genus_entry | taxon = ''[[Senecio]]''}}
{{Taxobox_species_entry | taxon = '''''S. jacobea'''''}}
{{Taxobox_end_placement}}
{{Taxobox_section_binomial_botany| binomial_name = Senecio jacobaea| 
author =[[Carolus Linnaeus|L.]]}}
{{Taxobox_end}}
this will cause the information to be displayed as a nice table see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ragwort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_read_a_taxobox

Templates also work well with categories. For example a 'flora of' 
template could be defined to list a plant as part of the native flora of 
a particular country. For example we could used {{flora of|China}}
which would automatically place the plant in the category 'flora of 
China'. Most of the fields we are interested in could be represented as 
such templates {{Height|10}} {{Edible uses|bread}}.

There are some limitations of the template/category system. It is not 
possible to include additional info in a category link, for example any 
reference to why it is included or a rating as to how good a particular 
uses is. It works less well for numeric fields like height.

In RDF terms it does not allow a full triple 
[object|relationship|subject] [Budlia|food plant for|butterflies], but 
does come close.

In conclusion
-------------

The wiki model, in particular the MediaWiki implementation, covers
many of the features we need. It allows for extensible pages so new 
sections could easily be added without being limited by the underlying 
data structure. It has a powerful, flexible and extensible linking 
system which nearly meets our needs. Its also an out of the box system 
so little work to get it running. Out of interest there is a 
permaculture wiki city http://permawiki.wikicities.com/
but its rather empty at the moment.

Rich

--
Plants for a Future: 7000 useful plants
Web:   http://www.pfaf.org/
Post:  1 Lerryn View, Lerryn, Lostwithiel, Cornwall, PL22 0QJ
Tel:     01208 872 963
Email: webweaver@pfaf.org
PFAF electronic mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pfaf