- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:31:55 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
[snip] > 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. I think Boris changed his mind because I talked to him very recently and he said he would recommend the use of the wiki for editiong SPARQL documents too or at least that he would not see major reasons of not using the wiki since it got much faster after the server upgrade. I can't remember his exact phrase but it wasn't "Stay clear of wiki editing if you can." > (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. Probably but our documents do not have a common file but use several copies of the file that could do this. Birte > Cheers, > Bijan. > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 18:32:29 UTC