Simplified Entry of Material, Use Cases, etc.
Some folks who are not familiar with, or comfortable with wikis, some tips on how to contribute easily is needed.
Someone at the May 9 Plenary asked about using Word documents and then pasting text. That doesn't work particularly well. However, it is not too difficult to provide a text document to use as a template, and perhaps some HowTo about it.
One thing that is helpful is for others to also curate the material. I notice one simple thing is to put markers in places where links to definitions are needed (e.g., LOA2, LOA3, ..., and other domain-specific terms). Orcmid (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed to have a first entry "IDESG Activities" and then list main current activities (Terminology, Standards, Use Cases, etc.)
This would be reviewed and revised after a couple of months use
--Peter F Brown (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Question Is "related organizations and initiatives" where information about (say) Pilots and IDESG Stakeholders would go? Scott Shorter (talk)
Answer Yes and no. I was thinking of a listing of all organizations and initiatives outside of IDESG with whom we have some relationship; such as other international initiatives that the International Committee are cataloguing; the pilots; other projects, etc. but not including IDESG stakeholders per se.--Peter F Brown (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed not to reference this as a top-level work area (whose main value would be as a reference document - which ought to go on the website not the wiki)
Group home pages on Wiki?
Suggestion IDESG committees should have "home pages" on the wiki where they can post the standing agenda, next meeting logistics, etc? This would get the information out beyond the standards_sc email list, and help people get up to speed on committee business. Scott Shorter (talk)
Opinion For the moment, there is the 'main' IDESG web site where this happens - remember that we need a stable repository for agenda, documents, etc - and the wiki is not that!--Peter F Brown (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Initial list of concepts
The list posted on the main page has now been moved to the Concept Catalog page, now that this has been created.
Namespaces for 'Concept' and 'Definition'
Question I recommend we use namespaces to differentiate Concept:Identity from Definition:Identity. Scott Shorter (talk)
Opinion Not convinced - when anyone links to a particular concept they should be able to use the standard double-square-bracket wiki convention and land on the related page describing and defining the concept. That page should always be structured to include the elements that I laid out in slide 11 of my recommendations:
- Distinguish it – make clear that there is a distinct concept;
- Describe it – identify the “unique combination of characteristics” that underlines that distinction;
- Define it – provide a descriptive statement that serves to differentiate the concept from another;
If the assertion is maintained that a distinct concept exists, then...
- Label it – give it a name
If the name exists already, decide whether a homonym is acceptable; if so, ensure the catalog highlights that different definitions/concepts exist for the same term and, ideally, the context(s) in which each would be used
The danger with having two pages for each concept is that conceptually (excuse the pun) it may not be obvious to the lay reader which is the one they want to refer to or link to.
What would you actually find on a page Concept:Identity?
--Peter F Brown (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed to look at Categroies and not use Namespaces
Functions to look at
- Consult the User's Guide for information on using the wiki software.
- Templates and auto-include boilerplate text (as well as editing instructions and warnings for users), per page type
I think the IDESG home page should be editable, just like other pages. It would encourage it to be updated, and could always be locked again if abused.