Cool, that's great news that the data is there. From the point of view of modelling this process, I guess I'd argue that each new tag added by a person represents "that person tagging the thing with a certain tag", but that "an edit by person B that leaves in place a tag X added by person A", does not represent an instance of "person B tagging the thing with tag X". This level of pickiness may be a bit anally retentive however.
On the upside, this process (as you point out with the Bermondsey example) does provide a very neat way of establishing the possible trustworthiness of tagging statements. Something along the lines of "if more than X people have edited a node and left in place the category/tag Y, then we're confident to a degree Z that this is the case" may be possible. Obviously still open to spamming of confidence levels, but better than nothing :)
Tom.
On 29/03/07, Kake L Pugh kake@earth.li wrote:
On Thu 29 Mar 2007, Tom Heath tom.heath@gmail.com wrote:
Using the whole-hog approach of expressing "who tagged what with what and when" might be a bit tricky, because if you edit an entry that I placed in the Wolverton locale, who did the tagging? me? both of us? and when? I'm not sure if this degree of provenance data is held in the db or not.
You can get it out of the database, e.g.:
node name | version | category | username-----------------------------+---------+----------------------+-------------- Assa, WC2H 8LH | 2 | Korean Food | bob Assa, WC2H 8LH | 3 | Korean Food | Kake Assa, WC2H 8LH | 1 | Restaurants | Claudia Assa, WC2H 8LH | 2 | Restaurants | bob Assa, WC2H 8LH | 3 | Restaurants | Kake
This means that Claudia added Assa and tagged it as a restaurant, then Bob added the Korean Food tag. It also means that Bob agrees (or, at least, doesn't disagree) with Claudia that it's a restaurant, and that Kake agrees with both Bob and Claudia that it's a restaurant serving Korean Food.
(You can get the dates of the edits too, I just didn't bother in this extract.)
(I talked with zool about this many years ago - in a way, an edit that doesn't remove a category or locale is a "vote" for that category/locale being correct. We were wondering if we could use this in some way to "define" the extent of a locale - as in, if 20 people agree that a point is in Bermondsey, then it probably is. I don't think we have enough contributors for this to work, but theoretically it's a nice idea.)
Here's the SQL, linewrapped for readability; the "substring" stuff was just to make the output fit in 80 characters.
london=> select substring(node.name from 1 for 27) as "node name", content.version, substring(mc.metadata_value from 1 for 20) as "category", mn.metadata_value as "username" from content inner join node on (content.node_id=node.id) inner join metadata as mn on (content.node_id=mn.node_id and content.version=mn.version and mn.metadata_type='username') inner join metadata as mc on (content.node_id=mc.node_id and content.version=mc.version and mc.metadata_type='category' ) order by node.name, mc.metadata_value, content.version;
Kake
-- OpenGuides-Dev mailing list - OpenGuides-Dev@lists.openguides.org http://lists.openguides.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openguides-dev