29 May
2012
29 May
'12
9:58 a.m.
Hello! On the train the other day I had some ideas about the way data
input could work for a "last verified" field for OpenGuides. I drew a
thing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kake_pugh/7278918078/
This would result in three pieces of data, which will be stored if and
only if the "re-confirm existence?" tickybox is ticked:
- the date on which the existence of the business described was last checked
(it should be possible to give either a specific day or just the month)
- the method by which it was checked (free text, e.g. "phoned them up", but
with a tickybox or two to make it easy to give standard reasons such as
"went past and saw it open" - a tick in this box would be turned into
text by the code before storing in the database)
- the person who checked it (not explicitly entered on the form, but taken
from the username of the person performing the edit - see above, this
only happens if they explicitly choose to "re-confirm existence")
Anyone got any thoughts on the above?
Regarding the backend, here is some previous discussion on the point:
http://lists.openguides.org/pipermail/openguides-dev/2007-June/001872.html
Dom points out in that post that there are two ways of doing it:
- as Wiki::Toolkit metadata
- as a new field in the node/content tables
Advantages of doing it as metadata:
- No need to change Wiki::Toolkit databases in a way that is irrelevant to
some wikis.
- The "method of checking" data is really OpenGuides-specific, so should go
in the metadata table, and then it would be nice to have the "date of
checking" in there as well. Also, the "person who checked" data needs
to
go somewhere (this isn't always the same as the "person who last
edited").
Then again, we already have a small inconsistency in that "date last edited"
and "person who last edited" are in different tables.
Advantages of doing it in the node/content tables:
- We can store it as a proper date type, which saves some fiddling around
in terms of actually using the data.
Actually it strikes me that a third possibility would be to use plugins:
https://metacpan.org/module/Wiki::Toolkit::Plugin
though the Wiki::Toolkit plugin system never really got fully developed,
and this might be an overcomplicated way of doing it for little benefit.
Thoughts?
Kake
29 May
29 May
7:28 p.m.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:58:37AM +0100, Kake wrote:
Hello! On the train the other day I had some ideas
about the way data
input could work for a "last verified" field for OpenGuides. I drew a
thing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kake_pugh/7278918078/
This would result in three pieces of data, which will be stored if and
only if the "re-confirm existence?" tickybox is ticked:
- the date on which the existence of the business described was last checked
(it should be possible to give either a specific day or just the month)
- the method by which it was checked (free text, e.g. "phoned them up", but
with a tickybox or two to make it easy to give standard reasons such as
"went past and saw it open" - a tick in this box would be turned into
text by the code before storing in the database)
- the person who checked it (not explicitly entered on the form, but taken
from the username of the person performing the edit - see above, this
only happens if they explicitly choose to "re-confirm existence")
Anyone got any thoughts on the above?
This looks excellent, thanks for this.
Regarding the backend, here is some previous
discussion on the point:
http://lists.openguides.org/pipermail/openguides-dev/2007-June/001872.html
Dom points out in that post that there are two ways of doing it:
- as Wiki::Toolkit metadata
- as a new field in the node/content tables
Advantages of doing it as metadata:
- No need to change Wiki::Toolkit databases in a way that is irrelevant to
some wikis.
- The "method of checking" data is really OpenGuides-specific, so should go
in the metadata table, and then it would be nice to have the "date of
checking" in there as well. Also, the "person who checked" data needs
to
go somewhere (this isn't always the same as the "person who last
edited").
Then again, we already have a small inconsistency in that "date last
edited"
and "person who last edited" are in different tables.
Advantages of doing it in the node/content tables:
- We can store it as a proper date type, which saves some fiddling around
in terms of actually using the data.
Actually it strikes me that a third possibility would be to use plugins:
https://metacpan.org/module/Wiki::Toolkit::Plugin
though the Wiki::Toolkit plugin system never really got fully developed,
and this might be an overcomplicated way of doing it for little benefit.
Thoughts?
Hmm, no clear ones here, I'm afraid.
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
30 May
30 May
1:26 p.m.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 09:58:37AM +0100, Kake wrote:
> Advantages of doing it in the node/content
tables:
> - We can store it as a proper date type, which saves some fiddling around
> in terms of actually using the data.
> [...]
> Thoughts?
On Tue 29 May 2012, Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li> wrote:
Hmm, no clear ones here, I'm afraid.
No problem; thanks for the reply.
I had another think about this, and the part about being able to store
the last verified date as a proper date type may be a red herring.
Really, we should be doing this for _all_ metadata, i.e. storing it in
the most appropriate form (integers for X and Y!) So I don't think we
should necessarily single out the last verified date in this way.
A proposal: let's put all the last verified stuff in the metadata
table, and get that implemented and finished. Then as a separate
project, let's create additional metadata tables to store different
types of data.
Kake
31 May
31 May
10:50 a.m.
On Tue 29 May 2012, Kake <kake(a)earth.li> wrote:
Hello! On the train the other day I had some ideas
about the way data
input could work for a "last verified" field for OpenGuides. I drew a
thing:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kake_pugh/7278918078/
This would result in three pieces of data, which will be stored if and
only if the "re-confirm existence?" tickybox is ticked:
- the date on which the existence of the business described was last checked
(it should be possible to give either a specific day or just the month)
- the method by which it was checked (free text, e.g. "phoned them up", but
with a tickybox or two to make it easy to give standard reasons such as
"went past and saw it open" - a tick in this box would be turned into
text by the code before storing in the database)
- the person who checked it (not explicitly entered on the form, but taken
from the username of the person performing the edit - see above, this
only happens if they explicitly choose to "re-confirm existence")
Anyone got any thoughts on the above?
I don't have much to add but I think this is great! :-)
I'm assuming it will be mostly standard reasons, select from
* phoned them up
* walked past & saw it
* saw an email/blogpost/tweet/etc from them
* ...other (free text)
I can't think of any other ways you could check the existence of a
business, to be honest, but maybe I'm just unimaginative...
I wonder if we need to have some way of saying whether it was just the
existence that was checked or whether other details (e.g. opening hours)
were checked too... but that might get complicated.
Jx
12:09 p.m.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50:24AM +0100, Janet McKnight wrote:
I'm assuming it will be mostly standard reasons,
select from
* phoned them up
* walked past & saw it
* saw an email/blogpost/tweet/etc from them
* ...other (free text)
I can't think of any other ways you could check the existence of a
business, to be honest, but maybe I'm just unimaginative...
the obvious ones missing from that list are "I went in and spent some
money" and "I work there" :-)
I wonder if we need to have some way of saying whether
it was just the
existence that was checked or whether other details (e.g. opening hours)
were checked too... but that might get complicated.
The London guide already has (in plain text, I think, not in DB fields)
info on when opening times were checked and when it was last confirmed
to still exist. eg ...
http://london.randomness.org.uk/wiki.cgi?Balham_Bowls_Club,_SW12_8QX
which says (at the moment) "Last visited by DrHyde, March 2011. Opening
hours taken from the Balham Bowls Club website, December 2011". I think
there's value in this.
--
David Cantrell | even more awesome than a panda-fur coat
The voices said it's a good day to clean my weapons
12:30 p.m.
On Thu 31 May 2012, David Cantrell <david(a)cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
the obvious ones missing from that list are "I
went in and spent some
money" and "I work there" :-)
Good point! Though in either case you would have had to walk by, sort
of... ;) Perhaps a more general "I saw it with my own eyes" option
would cover all these cases.
The London guide already has (in plain text, I think,
not in DB fields)
info on when opening times were checked and when it was last confirmed
to still exist. eg ...
http://london.randomness.org.uk/wiki.cgi?Balham_Bowls_Club,_SW12_8QX
which says (at the moment) "Last visited by DrHyde, March 2011. Opening
hours taken from the Balham Bowls Club website, December 2011". I think
there's value in this.
Definitely! And good to know the provenance as well as the last-updated
time -- opening times from websites are useful but not 100% reliable (mind
you opening times on the door etc aren't 100% either but probably closer!).
It has just (belatedly) occurred to me though -- if I copy the opening
times of a business from its website, am I allowed to make that info
available under a cc licence? Is it a fact rather than something that can
be copyrighted? Yes, I know, I should know this stuff by now. :-/
Jx
7:38 p.m.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Janet McKnight wrote:
It has just (belatedly) occurred to me though -- if I
copy the opening
times of a business from its website, am I allowed to make that info
available under a cc licence? Is it a fact rather than something that can
be copyrighted? Yes, I know, I should know this stuff by now. :-/
Individual facts are not copyrightable. Collections of facts (databases)
may be subject to database rights.
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
1 Jun
1 Jun
11:53 a.m.
On Thu 31 May 2012, Dominic Hargreaves <dom(a)earth.li> wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Janet
McKnight wrote:
So is a list of opening times an individual fact (rather than a very small
collection of facts)?
I'm not trying to split hairs, I'm interested to know how/where the line is
drawn. Though it may be off-topic for this list so perhaps I should just
shut up now.
Jx
It has just (belatedly) occurred to me though --
if I copy the opening
times of a business from its website, am I allowed to make that info
available under a cc licence? Is it a fact rather than something that can
be copyrighted? Yes, I know, I should know this stuff by now. :-/
Individual facts are not copyrightable. Collections of facts (databases)
may be subject to database rights. 
1 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:53:39AM +0100, Janet McKnight wrote:
On Thu 31 May 2012, Dominic Hargreaves
<dom(a)earth.li> wrote:
It's a database if it took "substantial investment" to obtain and compile,
so I'm pretty confident that doesn't cover the opening hours of a shop,
compiled by the shop itself.
s
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:30:39PM +0100, Janet
McKnight wrote:
So is a list of opening times an individual fact (rather than a very small
collection of facts)? It has just (belatedly) occurred to me though --
if I copy the opening
times of a business from its website, am I allowed to make that info
available under a cc licence? Is it a fact rather than something that can
be copyrighted? Yes, I know, I should know this stuff by now. :-/
Individual facts are not copyrightable. Collections of facts (databases)
may be subject to database rights.
2 Jun
2 Jun
1:32 p.m.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:50:24AM +0100, Janet McKnight wrote:
> I'm assuming it will be mostly standard
reasons, select from
>
> * phoned them up
> * walked past & saw it
> * saw an email/blogpost/tweet/etc from them
> * ...other (free text)
Yes - I think actually the third of those might be best put in the
free text field, especially if the field accepted wiki-formatting, so
you could then link to the blogpost/tweet.
On Thu 31 May 2012, David Cantrell <david(a)cantrell.org.uk> wrote:
the obvious ones missing from that list are "I
went in and spent some
money" and "I work there" :-)
I would like to have some kind of wording that subsumes these under
the same heading as "walked past and saw it" - possibly "I was there
in person" or something? I would like the wording to emphasise that
you have to see the place _actually open_ for it to count as confirmation.
The London guide already has (in plain text, I think,
not in DB fields)
info on when opening times were checked and when it was last confirmed
to still exist. eg ...
http://london.randomness.org.uk/wiki.cgi?Balham_Bowls_Club,_SW12_8QX
which says (at the moment) "Last visited by DrHyde, March 2011. Opening
hours taken from the Balham Bowls Club website, December 2011". I think
there's value in this.
Yep, that's in plain text on RGL. It's in its own div, which allows
programmatic manipulation (with a bit of screenscraping and fiddling).
I usually like to have the opening hours provenance attached to the
opening hours, somehow, as well. My latest OpenGuides project
(launching on 1 August!) has the provenance in the opening hours
field, e.g. the metadata display looks like this:
Address: 104 Tamworth Road, CR0 1XX (map) (osm) (gmap) (streetview)
Opening Hours: 6:30am-6pm Mon-Sun (taken from A-board opposite cafe, August 2011)
Categories: British Food, Cafes, Eat-In Food
Locales: Croydon, Tamworth Road
i.e. when I added that page, I typed "6:30am-6pm Mon-Sun (taken from
A-board opposite cafe, August 2011)" in the "Opening hours" box on the
edit form.
Kake
4131
days inactive
4134
days old
openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
David Cantrell -
Dominic Hargreaves -
Janet McKnight -
Kake -
Stephen Gower