W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

RE: Wiki seems to be near to collapse!

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:56:38 +0100
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, "'Ian Horrocks'" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "'W3C OWL Chairs'" <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <47D4521704284D198AA8644BC263EC88@wolf>
Hello,

In my opinion, as system that we had for OWL 1.1 worked rather well. It
consisted of two parts:

- The spec was kept in SVN. People would check it in and out as needed.

- There as a script running somewhere that would check every couple of minutes
whether something was added to SVN and if so, it would publish the new documents
online. (I don't know whether the script was polling the SVN or whether it got
notified by SVN after a check-in.) Thus, a few minutes after a change in the
document, the change would become visible to everybody.

This had really numerous advantages over the Wiki solution:

- You could use whatever tool you wanted to edit the spec.

- You could work off-line.

- No performance penalty was incurred.

- You did not need to create a new version of a document just to see what your
changes look like. (I know that Wiki has a "preview" feature, but this often
does not work correctly so I usually need to check in the new version just to
see what I've changed.)

The only downside I can think of is the lack of templates. Given how much of a
pain the Wiki solution was, I would be happy to give that up in exchange for a
much more comfortable system.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Sandro Hawke
> Sent: 07 April 2009 14:36
> To: Ian Horrocks
> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group; W3C OWL Chairs
> Subject: Re: Wiki seems to be near to collapse!
> 
> 
> > It seems to be dying on its feet! It makes working with the damn
> > thing *even more* of a pain in the ass than usual!
> 
> Yes, it's quite dead now.  :-(   Folks are working on it.
> 
> Perhaps this is a time to reflect on its merits and drawbacks.  What
> would you do differently next time?  Both very-practical and blue-sky
> answers would be valuable.
> 
>       -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 13:57:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 April 2009 13:57:56 GMT