Re: [Bug-gnupedia]Data Model

[Bob Dodd]

[snip]
> Agreed. If you wait making these decisions, you will have a lot of
> wrapping to do when you finally make it. The longer you wait, the
> harder it will get. The problem is that we don't really know what to 
> expect from the content, to my knowledge, there aren't really that 
> much contributions yet.

I'm not sure that you need to know so much about the content, to know
what the basic attributes of that content are. OK, ratings systems,
peer review references, versioning (assuming we allow updates to
entries) will be fluid for quite some time, but everything else is
pretty well understood. 
 
Actually, that version field is going to be very important if we want
people to cite our work. One of the big problems just now is how to
cite web references in PhDs: often the web site lasts less time than it
takes to get the PhD reviewed. Even if the site is still there, there
is no guarantee that the article hasn't been updated...

> Maybe we should just write the first entry (probably being "aardvark"
> in a good BlackAdder tradition) and try to establish a format based
on
> the example.

Or "plagiarism"; we have that to deal with too...

/Bob


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/