- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:35:38 -0400
- To: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 19 Oct 2009, at 12:43, Birte Glimm wrote: > I talked to Sandro and his wiki magic is pretty time consuming and > complicated to set up, so it is only worth the effort if (more or > less) all documents are always edited in the wiki and from time to > time we decide to publish something. Then the wiki magic will do the > wiki to W3C HTML pages conversion. > Working only in the wiki for OWL was initially a bit painful because > it was very slow, but W3C has upgraded their servers and now it works > ok and the wiki has all the features hat they needed. Wiki is not very > good with parallel changes according to Ian, but for OWL it worked > pretty well overall I think. At least three editors (me, Boris, and Peter) hated the wiki. It was ok for some things (low entry barrier), but when it went wrong it went fairly wrong. I found it a bit inhibiting when having to do major changes. And even small changes could be annoying, depending on the nature of the change. (Note, I like wikis by and large ;)) I don't know if it was, in aggregate worse than any other method. Boris, Peter, and I can be kinda whiny :) > They have wiki templates for bib entries > for example, so that bibliographies are consistent throughout the > documents and templates are nice for other things too. I think most of these could be replicated with xmlspec or similar. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 17:36:10 UTC