- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:32:05 +0100
- 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 UTC