RE: [Bug-gnupedia] Separating content from presentation

[Duncan Lock]

        I think that we have largely been discussing the core 'back-end'
structure for the GNUPedia content (I have at least). To be able to present
different views onto the same core dataset that dataset must contain the
appropriate information to allow construction of the views you need. If you
get this right (or right enough) then it's relatively easy to 'query' your
content (like a database) for subsets that you want.
        If you want to have a kids.gnupedia.org then you would need some
king of age rating metadata attached to each item of content (ideally) or
enough subject/category information attached to each item of content to say
'hide articles in the adult category or containing unacceptable
language/pictures/videos/bomb making instructions/whatever else'
        Something like this would also sidestep the issue of censorship (on
our behalf) and allow people filter the content the way they want while
allowing us the hold all content in one inclusive GNUPedia. making personal
censorship possible but also making all the material available if desired.

        To have efficient views and applications based on the GNUPedia
content you need to have the 'core' set up to allow this to happen.
Therefore I think we need to keep both 'sub-projects' in mind while making
decisions.

Dunc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden
> Behalf Of Bob Dodd
> Sent: 18 January 2001 10:55
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Bug-gnupedia] Separating content from presentation
> 
> 
> We've had some really good posts on the project so far, but I think we
> need to begin to separate out issues a little more than we have so
> far...
> 
> There are two basic parts to an information repository: 
> 
> 1) The raw content and internal structure that supports it
> 2) Views of that information which are presented to the user
> 
> And we need to be clear which part we are talking about.
> 
> Stuart Yeates (Re: Classification difficulty and incompleteness) makes
> some very good points about classification in terms of how subjective
> classification (and hence editing) can be, and that strongly suggests,
> to me at least, that rating systems and clasifications exist 
> as *views*
> of the data i.e. as part of catalogs of the information, and not as
> part of the internal structure of the 'pedia.  There will (hopefully)
> be many catalogs, each filtering and presenting the 'pedia in a manner
> appropriate to its users (e.g. filtering content to make a children's
> encylopedia), but with only one 'pedia.
> 
> So, we need to be careful to identify what we are talking 
> about when we
> post: is it the "core" 'pedia, and the essential organisation of that
> information (by subject, author, language, version, synonym...), or is
> it suggestions for a catalog (rating systems, hierarchies)?  We need
> both, I'd just like us to be clear in our own minds, which ones we
> think we are talking about.
> 
> I would also suggest that people's interests also spilt pretty much
> down these lines, and that we think of the 'pedia as two sub-projects:
> once concerned with the "core", and one concerned with the first
> catalog of its contents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnupedia mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnupedia
>