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

Re: Wiki seems to be near to collapse!

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:32:05 +0100
Message-Id: <099EF358-66E0-461D-A6FA-D6FCD2F355A2@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, W3C OWL Chairs <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>
On 7 Apr 2009, at 23:22, Michael Schneider wrote:
[snip]
> I must say I like the Wiki approach. For example, one can easily point
> people to a particular historic version of a document. They don't have
> to download anything, the old version is simply available as a  
> website.

This is pretty standard in web access to repos. And easy to simulate  
where not.

> One can also easily play around with new stylesheets and the like
> in a sandbox version of the document, create examples, and everything
> is a website accessible from everywhere.

I guess I don't see how a wiki makes this any easier. Is it the last  
bit, the website accessible from anywhere?

With the OWL 1.1 website you got this by a cron job pushing the  
committed HTML to the website. It was quite similar in feel.

My take away is that the nice features (live versions, comments on  
documents, templates, insta publish on commit) are all good. But  
nothing requires a wiki for those. Most canonical wiki features, edit  
this page, anyone can edit, wikisyntax, wikilinks, and in browser  
editing don't seem to have helped much at all (in document  
production). And for some tasks, the wiki sucked.

So I would hope that future document production at the W3C that I was  
involved in would give me the nice features in a more comfortable  
overall environment.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 22:32:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 7 April 2009 22:32:43 GMT