Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Wiki pages, Forums, Comments, Annotations, Versions, Relations...

20110927 London discussion

We discussed them as pretty much the same thing, and liked the idea of unification.
They are similar conceptually (they're all part of Research Discourse) and as data.
They differ by status (disposition): some are Publishable, some can be Approved as new authoritative version of the data, others are Rejected to prevent further (off-topic) discussion, etc.

  • I can make a data Annotation on a particular data field (or a whole object): that's a Comment
  • Someone can reply: how we have a Forum
  • I could also propose a new value for the field: that's a Version
  • I can justify my thinking by linking to another object or field: that's a Relation
  • I can write my comment with extra precision, rigour and interesting facts: that's similar to a publishable Wiki page that can go to the published site

In addition:

  • We should make it very easy for users to embed a semantic link: see [OntoCollab:IKS VIE] notes/presentations
  • People may also want to talk about stuff in general, not about specific objects. See MFPMFP for examples. Even small talk is ok: that's part of the social discourse that facilitates Research Discourse
  • The various statuses (dispositions) are important! Eg MFPMFP distinguishes between Recent Comments (small writeups) vs Recent Contributions (more substantive writeups, i.e. separate pages)

20120801 Current Status

  • Data and Image annotations are presented in a "Forum" view
  • But it's flat and has no features
  • RS3.6 needs to implement feature-rich Forums

20120816 Requirements Questions

We need to answer some key requirements questions first, so we can evaluate alternatives.

Are Forums related to Annotations

We suggested so in the London discussion from a year ago.
But I think Dominic's latest thinking is that they are totally independent. This means that a Data Version cannot result directly from a discussion

Should Forums be stored in RDF or in RDBMS

  • related Req Items:
    04.SOCIALNET.R3: When posts (contributions) are made within a social networking tool, the information should be stored in the RDF store if that information enriches the store of cultural heritage data and information stored there.
    04.SOCIALNET.R4: when scholars are contributing to a general discussion, they should have the opportunity of saving the whole blog, discussion or wiki as an annotation with the appropriate associations or relationships in the RDF store
    • In addition to "RDF not RDBMS", these items also point out that "Forums are related to Annotations"
    • But they don't answer the question how to transition from unstructured (discussion) to structured (APs and new values)
  • Vlado: I feel storing all data in RDF is better, since it keeps the door open for unified search and various kinds of integrations
    • But it's unlikely we'll find a ready feature-rich Forum storing in RDF. In that case we'd need to retarget it
    • If we decide to use RDBMS, I think we should use the same one as Nuxeo (Postgres), though that might be going away

What features are we looking for in a forum

  • Functionality, such as editing/adding/filtering/threading...
  • Compatibility with current tools
    • Must use the same rich text editor, so semantic links would work
    • Possibility to retarget it to an RDF store

20120813 Implementation Choices

Dominic:

  • I am tempted to write the forum specification for sprint 6 against the use of WordPress and the bbpress forum plugin –see http://chasesagum.com/5-best-choices-for-wordpress-forum-plugins
  • This would provide a low risk look at WordPress as a potential platform while providing the required forum functionality which seems straight forward and easily customisable.
  • Please can you give me your thoughts.

Vlado:

  • WordPress is based on PHP, which has these implications:
    • Infrastructure: need to maintain yet another server
    • Development: we'll mix a third language in the fray (in addition to Java and JS). This is tenable only if we'll be using the software directly, and not adapting it in any way
      I think we should look for a Java-based forum, not PHP.
  • WordPress is based on MySQL. See discussion about "RDBMS vs RDF" above
Labels:
None
Enter labels to add to this page:
Please wait 
Looking for a label? Just start typing.
  1. Aug 16, 2012

    Question 1 - Is it useful to store discussion information in the RDF store?

    The discussion is designed help scholars come to decisions about recording more structured data. It may include instructions to go and do something, it may contain debates between scholars (which may be refelected in annotations) but the range of information is likely to be broad. Is mixing this text into the main RDF store for unified searching going to help or hinder finding the information that people need and are the annotations themselves a distillation of the discussions or are they essential context.

    Question 2 - Does it impact on Infrastructure?

    PHP is a lightweight scripting system. The database requirements for discussion is likely to be low compared to the RDF store.

    Question 3 - should we use Java or PHP or both?

    Better if we reduce the number of development languages. Java is industrial strength and complicated, PHP is lighter but simple to use.

    Question 4 - MySQL or Postgres?

    Does it really matter that much?