Started: 1/13/2009 7:06 PM | |  | |
| |  fbaadmin |
| Using this wiki for draft standards Here's a comment from Lee (gently edited):
The biggest obstacle I see right now on the CIM wiki on the CIMug site is the inability to cross-link from the draft standards to the publicly-available one (without using http links). Click here for an example, and see the link to 61968-9:
"This is the wikified version of the CDV for 61968-9."
Can we create a single wiki with public pages and protected (member-only) pages?
I think the biggest value to the CIMug membership will be reading the standards and being able to drill down into explanatory text (on the publicly-available wiki). | fbaadmin | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: fbaadmin" /> | | fbaadmin |
| Here's a comment from Lee (gently edited):
The biggest obstacle I see right now on the CIM wiki on the CIMug site is the inability to cross-link from the draft standards to the publicly-available one (without using http links). Click here for an example, and see the link to 61968-9:
"This is the wikified version of the CDV for 61968-9."
Can we create a single wiki with public pages and protected (member-only) pages?
I think the biggest value to the CIMug membership will be reading the standards and being able to drill down into explanatory text (on the publicly-available wiki). | | | | | 3 | 1/13/2009 7:06 PM | 1/13/2009 7:06 PM | No | | Edited: 1/13/2009 7:27 PM | | | |
| | | fbaadmin |
|
I'm going to need to work this out in some more detail to catch up with you.
We created both CIMwiki (above) and the draft standards wiki ( click here). I am assuming that these serve separate - but related - purposes? Where CIMwiki would be designed to be informative - much like wikipedia - all about CIM. But what is your purpose for the DraftStdsWiki?
- Is it targeted somewhat differently?
- I.e. are you suggesting that WG members actually would make changes, or that CIMug members might actually add comments or questions?
- Is it only to display a current version of the draft standard, with links to relevant info?
I see your comment and agree:
I think the biggest value to the CIMug membership will be reading the standards and being able to drill down into explanatory text (on the publicly-available wiki).
Just need to get further into the details...
RR | fbaadmin | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: fbaadmin" /> | | fbaadmin |
|
I'm going to need to work this out in some more detail to catch up with you.
We created both CIMwiki (above) and the draft standards wiki ( click here). I am assuming that these serve separate - but related - purposes? Where CIMwiki would be designed to be informative - much like wikipedia - all about CIM. But what is your purpose for the DraftStdsWiki?
- Is it targeted somewhat differently?
- I.e. are you suggesting that WG members actually would make changes, or that CIMug members might actually add comments or questions?
- Is it only to display a current version of the draft standard, with links to relevant info?
I see your comment and agree:
I think the biggest value to the CIMug membership will be reading the standards and being able to drill down into explanatory text (on the publicly-available wiki).
Just need to get further into the details...
RR | | | | | 0 | 1/13/2009 7:25 PM | 1/13/2009 7:27 PM | | | Posted: 2/6/2009 12:53 PM | | | |
| | | fbaadmin |
| Synopsis:
Yes, the intention of the publicly-accessible CIMwiki is to create a wikipedia for the CIM.
The intention of the user (only) accessible DraftStdsWiki was to wikify the draft standards (that only CIMug members have access rights to per our liaison with the IEC).
Keeping the public and private parts separate is the goal. If we could use one wiki for both with access restrictions (login required) on the few draft standard pages, that could be a solution.
On a related note, I would hope that only logged-in CIMug members could modify the pages.
-Lee
From: randy.rhodes
Posted: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: Using this wiki for draft standards
I'm going to need to work this out in some more detail to catch up with you.
We created both CIMwiki (above) and the draft standards wiki ( click here). I am assuming that these serve separate - but related - purposes? Where CIMwiki would be designed to be informative - much like wikipedia - all about CIM. But what is your purpose for the DraftStdsWiki?
- Is it targeted somewhat differently?
- I.e. are you suggesting that WG members actually would make changes, or that CIMug members might actually add comments or questions?
- Is it only to display a current version of the draft standard, with links to relevant info?
I see your comment and agree:
I think the biggest value to the CIMug membership will be reading the standards and being able to drill down into explanatory text (on the publicly-available wiki).
Just need to get further into the details...
RR | fbaadmin | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: fbaadmin" /> | | fbaadmin |
| Synopsis:
Yes, the intention of the publicly-accessible CIMwiki is to create a wikipedia for the CIM.
The intention of the user (only) accessible DraftStdsWiki was to wikify the draft standards (that only CIMug members have access rights to per our liaison with the IEC).
Keeping the public and private parts separate is the goal. If we could use one wiki for both with access restrictions (login required) on the few draft standard pages, that could be a solution.
On a related note, I would hope that only logged-in CIMug members could modify the pages.
-Lee
From: randy.rhodes
Posted: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 7:27 PM
Subject: Using this wiki for draft standards
I'm going to need to work this out in some more detail to catch up with you.
We created both CIMwiki (above) and the draft standards wiki ( click here). I am assuming that these serve separate - but related - purposes? Where CIMwiki would be designed to be informative - much like wikipedia - all about CIM. But what is your purpose for the DraftStdsWiki?
- Is it targeted somewhat differently?
- I.e. are you suggesting that WG members actually would make changes, or that CIMug members might actually add comments or questions?
- Is it only to display a current version of the draft standard, with links to relevant info?
I see your comment and agree:
I think the biggest value to the CIMug membership will be reading the standards and being able to drill down into explanatory text (on the publicly-available wiki).
Just need to get further into the details...
RR | | | | | 0 | 2/6/2009 12:53 PM | 2/6/2009 12:53 PM | | | Edited: 2/16/2009 10:43 AM | | | |
| | | fbaadmin |
|
The intention of using Sharepoint to wikify the draft standards is a noble one, but brings up a lot of questions in my mind.
First, the standards drafting process is a highly controlled process within IEC. As shown in this WG 13 list, there are six or more discrete states in the process. Their control mechanisms (as I understand it so far) are defined in the WG best practices - dealing with document title blocks, markup processes, file names, etc. These are all file-centric, using capabilities from the document editing world (Word or otherwise).
Microsoft introduced some migration of those management tools to the web with the Sharepoint product - now we have check-in/check-out, file-level locking, and a bunch of "Core Column" fields that can be used to add document metadata. Those include Author, Category, Contributor, Coverage, Date Created, Date Modified, Keywords, Last Printed, Resource Identifier, Revision, Rights Management, Source, Status Subject, and Version among others. There are workflow capabilities for document routing and approval - on and on it goes.
Then we get to the Sharepoint wiki world. The out-of-the-box wiki capability makes you think the dev team barely got started before SPS 2007 was released. I recently ran across this page by Larry Liu, who was the Sharepoint tech evangelist till last October, when he left to Telligent. " When I get asked about why Sharepoint's wiki doesn't do this or that..." His comments and all the responses are telling. So I have a couple questions...
- Is your purpose to open up the "funnel" for more input into the standards process? I.e. to get more people involved in standards development?
- If so are there any control mechanisms that would be necessary (similar to what IEC enforces on the WG process)?
I ask this since only the advanced wiki products such as MediaWiki (the product offshoot of Wikipedia) have the kind of editing controls that could be applied. At least that's based on what I know so far.
On the CoLab site I have barely gotten through the Enhanced Wiki Background and Scope. I haven't gotten yet into Requirements or Alternatives. But we can play with stuff in the meantime.
One option is the EWE 2.0 test. I have a discussion going with Telligent (no, not Larry Liu) about a product they have. And there are other options mentioned on the Scope page.
Looking forward to feedback,
RR
| fbaadmin | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: fbaadmin" /> | | fbaadmin |
|
The intention of using Sharepoint to wikify the draft standards is a noble one, but brings up a lot of questions in my mind.
First, the standards drafting process is a highly controlled process within IEC. As shown in this WG 13 list, there are six or more discrete states in the process. Their control mechanisms (as I understand it so far) are defined in the WG best practices - dealing with document title blocks, markup processes, file names, etc. These are all file-centric, using capabilities from the document editing world (Word or otherwise).
Microsoft introduced some migration of those management tools to the web with the Sharepoint product - now we have check-in/check-out, file-level locking, and a bunch of "Core Column" fields that can be used to add document metadata. Those include Author, Category, Contributor, Coverage, Date Created, Date Modified, Keywords, Last Printed, Resource Identifier, Revision, Rights Management, Source, Status Subject, and Version among others. There are workflow capabilities for document routing and approval - on and on it goes.
Then we get to the Sharepoint wiki world. The out-of-the-box wiki capability makes you think the dev team barely got started before SPS 2007 was released. I recently ran across this page by Larry Liu, who was the Sharepoint tech evangelist till last October, when he left to Telligent. " When I get asked about why Sharepoint's wiki doesn't do this or that..." His comments and all the responses are telling. So I have a couple questions...
- Is your purpose to open up the "funnel" for more input into the standards process? I.e. to get more people involved in standards development?
- If so are there any control mechanisms that would be necessary (similar to what IEC enforces on the WG process)?
I ask this since only the advanced wiki products such as MediaWiki (the product offshoot of Wikipedia) have the kind of editing controls that could be applied. At least that's based on what I know so far.
On the CoLab site I have barely gotten through the Enhanced Wiki Background and Scope. I haven't gotten yet into Requirements or Alternatives. But we can play with stuff in the meantime.
One option is the EWE 2.0 test. I have a discussion going with Telligent (no, not Larry Liu) about a product they have. And there are other options mentioned on the Scope page.
Looking forward to feedback,
RR
| | | | | 0 | 2/12/2009 7:19 PM | 2/16/2009 10:43 AM | | |
|
