> > > Data can have inaccuracies, but not bugs or features. So of
> > >course it's just consumed, and not contributed to.
> >
> > I don't think this follows.
>
> I'm siding with Nick here. If you find a mistake in the data, why
> would you not submit a correction? Unless you're the sort who loves
> to merge your private patches every time you update, just for the
> fun of battling with CVS.
It's not a matter of finding a mistake in data, it's a matter of
finding a mistake ONLY in data.
A working base of code encourages commitment more than
just data alone. People try to do something with the whole
system, experience some success, start building things around
the system, then find that something is wrong. They request
fixes, or, ideally, produce them. Whether the problem is in
the code or the data, a fix is a fix -- but it's important that
it's a fix to a working system, not just a base of knowledge.
If just data were enough, why do these 'data only' sites
keep going stale?
Change the data structure without a codebase to ground
it in reality, and you break tools. People start migrating
your data changes by hand, eventually drifting away to the next
'authoritative source'. And it sounds like there's been
an 'authoritative source' born every minute, lasting only
until they wise up.
> > I suspect that
> > if the contributors to this discussion had collectively spent as much
time
> > hacking as we have in discussion, we would have a semi-workable
framework
> > already.
>
> Absolutely! Less talk, more code!
I'd say "less philosphizing, more design"....except that it's
really, "less philosophizing, more theft." Much as I love
writing code, we should really be looking harder at the
resources people have already turned up, and asking what
we can start adapting. It's more about "what to reuse
and rewrite" than "what to write."
Links so far:
http://www.ccpp.org/ (courtesy of Jon Ellis)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wmlprogramming/messagesearch?query=wurfl
(courtesy of Clive van Hilton)
http://xml.apache.org/cocoon (courtesy of Curt Sampson)
http://www.axkit.org (courtesy of Dave Emery)
(I'm sure I've missed one.)
[snip]
> > Granted, it is all more complex in a cocoon type environment, and much
> > thought should be given to datastructure....
And thoughts should be shared. Since we're not telepathic....
a certain amount of talk is inevitable.
-michael turner
leap@gol.com
Received on Tue Feb 26 04:56:48 2002