Hi, I don't follow OG development but as host operator a few things are
coming up. The machine's load is gradually climbing over time and some
of that is OG.
Despite a relatively low hit rate on OG it is consuming quite a bit of
resource. If OG started taking off it would take the machine down.
First up: index.cgi requires 0.35s to perform a `perl -c` syntax check.
Any thoughts on putting OG on a mod_perl server? I have mod_perl running
here of course and we'd need to coordinate some apache.conf stuff.
Second: the supersearch.cgi gulps down CPU, often for seconds at a time.
It is a frequent resident of `top` output. This isn't really
acceptable. I'm going to request this feature be turned off unless an
effective optimisation plan or some other way to reduce its impact
here is constructed pretty soon. Sorry about this but it's encroaching
Third: I wonder if there's some way to instruct robots not to spider
parts of your wiki. This ought to speak for itself:
$ grep crawl /var/log/apache/london.openguides.org-access.log | grep 'action=edit' | wc -l
Finally: I posted about a DoS and was wondering what the status of a
solution was. http://openguides.org/mail/openguides-dev/2004-October/000542.html
Paul (any overbearing tone unintentional ;-)
Paul Makepeace .............................. http://paulm.com/inchoate/
"If my elbow was straight, then I'll show oyu mine!"
In the absence of a redesign of openguides.org (I just haven't found
the time, don't know if anyone else has?) I offer the following
suggestion for fitting the Randomness Guide into the list of links:
It's not perfect by any means, but it's good enough, I reckon. Any
objections to me committing this to svn and asking Earle to update the
So, it seems people are keen on a hackfest. Dom's made a meetomatic page
for people to register the dates they'd be able to make:
Current possible venues are Oxford and London. Any preferences? Any
offers of hosting in other towns?
The focus for this hackfest will probably be bug triage and bug closing.
Apologies to non-UK people - but we should see if we can work out some
way for you to "attend" via IRC.
Hello! I've signed up for this:
Basically, it's a bunch of geeks getting together in Alexandra Palace
on 16th-17th June, and making things. I thought it might be cool if
there were OpenGuides people there. Dom, might you be able to make it?
One of the organisers turned up on #london.pm the other day and said
not to be put off by the thing about "considered for participation"
and "reviewing applications for attendance" - apparently that's mostly
to put off people who're not actually involved in building interesting
things and just want to come for the free booze/networking/etc.
Note that I don't know if there'll be space there to do anything
directly OpenGuides-related, but it might be fun anyway.
This also reminded me that I've been thinking for a while that it
might be about time for another OpenGuides hackathon - anyone interested?
Also: I learn from the interweb that Earle is going to Montreal to
talk to Wikitravel people about RDF output and how we can make
OpenGuides and Wikitravel talk to each other:
Is anyone else doing anything exciting at the moment? I hear rumour of
a potential OpenGuides-related talk at YAPC::EU...
On 25/04/07, Kake L Pugh <kake(a)earth.li> wrote:
> On Tue 24 Apr 2007, Earle Martin <openguides(a)downlode.org> wrote:
> > I'm looking forward to flying the OG flag at RoCoCoCamp as well as a
> > long-overdue serious RDF talk with Evan.
> Do you know if he's been thinking about outputs other than RDF? I was
> wondering if OpenGuides should perhaps have additional output formats
> that are a little more programmer-friendly - maybe JSON? These could
> be optional depending on whether the admin has the relevant Perl
> modules installed.
We haven't talked about specific formats per se; what we're mostly
interested in is coordinating namespace usage. I've certainly got
nothing against JSON output, and it might even be nice to offer
N-Triples (http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-testcases/#ntriples) as well. Your
recent change to using templates for the output theoretically makes it
very easy for us to implement.
Some examples of our output in different formats using Dave Beckett's
excellent "triplr" triple-converter:
The edit form changes that I mentioned previously:
are now in svn. Basically, there are no longer any tables involved;
it's all done with <div>s, which gives you much more flexibility. I'd
really appreciate it if those of you with customised edit forms
(Boston, OGL, etc) could have a look at it and see if it lets you do
what you want to do. The new classes and things are all documented in
If you have any trouble with it, please let me know. I'd quite like
to get this released reasonably soon.
Hi Tom, sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy.
On 16/03/07, Tom Heath <tom.heath(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...It can be summarised as "if your server responds with a 200 range code to a
> > URI, it's an information resource; but anything within that resource
> > with a fragment identifier is not".
> If I've understood the theory correctly, then yes, this is largely
> true and fine if you simply have an RDF document at the URI (in a
> document that defines an ontology, for example), but is incorrect if
> the information resource is an HTML document (where a fragment
> identifier identifies a part of the document, i.e. an information
> resource). Therefore we probably shouldn't make that assumption, but
> instead say "we don't know what a hash URI identifies".
Okay, I guess that's a fair call.
> Richard Cyganiak covers this quite nicely I think:
> <snip>If TimBL says that hash URIs always represent concepts, and not
> part of documents, then he contradicts RFC 3986 and introduces an
> ambiguity that is just as bad as the original "URI crisis" which
> httpRange-14 was designed to solve.</snip>
Hrm. Interesting discussion, thanks for the pointer. I certainly don't
agree with that John Black fellow about "claims". RFC 3986 confuses me
somewhat, as it says "Fragment identifiers... [allow] an author to
specifically identify aspects of an existing resource..." This seems
to imply that a fragment only refers to an aspect of a resource, which
sounds at odds with fragmentInXML-28
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html#fragmentInXML-28), which says:
"In general, the fragment part of a URI may be used to refer to
abstractions as well as syntactic fragments of a representation".
Still, it's not really our place to try and resolve this issue here; a
perfectly acceptable workaround exists in the form of the 303 redirect
proposed by the resolution to httpRange-14. So that's fine, I'm happy.
> I prefer slash URIs as I believe they make a clearer
> distinction between a thing and a document about a thing (and 303
> redirects help avoid any ambiguity). They also send a stronger message
> about a URI of a thing being independent of any one particular
Yeah, sure; to a human a pile of line-noise (.?&=%bleah) isn't too
clear. Would you prefer example.com/guide/Foo_Bar/rdf or
example.com/guide/rdf/Foo_Bar? Also, since those would be the 303
redirects, what would they redirect to?
For example, even though it makes no difference at the
> machine level, as a human being using
> to identify the pub in a different document would still niggle me a
> bit. It just seems the wrong way around; surely the pub is the primary
> object, and any particular description of it is secondary?
Right. I'm sure we can hash something better out.
> > Incidentally, "obj" itself was something I made up after failing to
> > find a better alternative to the word "thing", which I have a strong
> > dislike for. I'm happy for better suggestions.
> I think it's fine, it follows the Ronseal approach. Would be
> interested in hearing you reasons for dislike of "thing", although
> you're welcome to save that for a face to face discussion over a beer
> sometime if you'd prefer.
Aw, no, I just think it sounds kind of weak. I think maybe "a strong
aversion" was a little strong, it's more of a niggling dislike. :)
> > Sorry? I don't follow... The RDF is completely independent of
> > anything; it was hand-composed. Unless you're referring to schemata
> > (yay Greek!) that we rely on as modules, rather than Perl modules?
> OK, that's interesting, I hadn't realised that. What I was really
> getting at is that (as I understand it) the OG software relies on Perl
> modules for generic Wiki functionality (of course I may be totally
> wide of the mark here, having never really delved around under the
> hood). If that is the case then our ability to redfine the addressing
> scheme for OpenGuides and create "pretty URIs" may be limited, as the
> modules define the URI syntax. Please clarify things for me if I'm
> wrong about this.
Right. Well, at present the CGI interface defines the URI syntax, but
we control the code, so the format of the URIs is entirely up to us.
What can be thought of can be coded.
> Just so I follow you, are you wedded to the fragment identifiers
> themselves, or simply the distinction between the "object/thing" and
> the "document about the object/thing"?
Definitely the latter.
> > But you could say that;
> > alternatively, the wn:Neighborhood item "Rotherhithe" could be given
> > an rdfs:isDefinedBy
> > rdf:resource="http://london.randomness.org.uk/wiki.cgi?id=Locale_Rotherhithe;format=rdf#o…">.
> > Your version is more compact, but doesn't specify that Rotherhithe is
> > a wn:Neighborhood, which is an explicit definition that I quite like.
> The more semantics the better I reckon, so saying that it's a
> Neighbo(u)rhood would be great. Something like:
> <uriForRotherhithe> foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf <documentAboutRotherhithe>
> <uriForRotherhithe> rdf:type wn:Neighborhood
> might be a nice way to express these things (would need to double
> check this before commiting it to code); I'm not totally sure of the
> semantics of rdfs:isDefinedBy, so not sure if we can make such a
> strong claim as <uriForRotherhithe> rdfs:isDefinedBy
> <documentAboutRotherhithe> (hence foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf).
I'll look into it.
> Not necessarily. If <http://wherever.openguides.org/contributors/bob/>
> returned a HTTP303 response and a "Location:
> http://wherever.openguides.org/contributors/bob/about" header,
> (where <http://wherever.openguides.org/contributors/bob/about> was a
> document describing Bob) then we'd be doing the right thing aswell.
> The # isn't essential.
Yep. That's great.