Well, I can only offer my 2 cents, from my fairly limited experience with
it.
It seems that what's mostly needed now is a front end for category
intersection. The one new function you talk about, and its associated
special pages, are the only implementation of that that I'm aware of.
However, the back end probably has issues, since support for that in core
has only recently been enhanced, and there is still ongoing work, which
would benefit SMW.
Attributes seem to add more complexity and have some more issues that
would need to be worked on. I think that should be a lower priority than
splitting the code. I.e. a core Semantic Mediawiki that just uses the
existing database schema & namespaces, and another extension to add
arbitrary tagging/relations.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:01:54 +0200, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
It would be cool if there were more clarity about this. Semantic MediaWiki
has been around for a long time. All the major criticisms of the past have
been dealt with. It cannot be said that the code is unknown or unknowable.
It has only one new command, it performs much better compared to last year,
it is being localised at Betawiki. I was told that even Wikia supports it on
request for its wikis...
Being able to break the SMW code into parts is indicative of code that is
build in a modular way. SMW would make a bigger difference in my mind then
the introduction of catalogs. It would be a massive boost to our aim to make
information available to the world.
Truly, if Semantic MediaWiki is not to be considered be at least clear why.
The alternative is unpleasant speculations and technical solutions that are
considered not necessarily the best.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Steve Sanbeg <ssanbeg(a)ask.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:01:43 +0200, Roan Kattouw wrote:
>
> > Steve Sanbeg schreef:
> >>
> >> So maybe it would make sense to develop an extension that would use the
> >> category ID with an SMW like front end, using code broken off from both
> >> extensions?
> > Wouldn't it be better just to improve SMW's category handling?
> >
> > Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
>
> That should be the end result. But it seems it's been decided that
> SMW is too monolithic, and Markus has already offered to split parts into
> smaller extensions, so this seems like the logical place to start.
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>