Talk:Web Presence Requirements

From Filtered Push Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



  • Data consumers – Researchers applying natural history specimen information data to taxonomic, ecological, and other scientific questions.
I definitely would not limit the context to specimen data. Per meeting today, I don't yet have a clear idea of where we should emphasize the generality of FP. We certainly don't want to limit our public face to specimen records. In fact, one deliverable even for this grant is to build an FP client for GoldenGate, which is a taxonomic literature markup tool. --Bob Morris 21:52, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Easily navigable. Information of interest to visitors should be provided on the main page or via a limited number of pages linked directly from and easily found on the main page.
I like this statement, but I'd like it to ultimately mean "Easily semanticly navigable", since we have Semantic Media Wiki installed. An example (possibly the only one presently) can be seen by going to User:Bob_Morris and in the left pane select "Browse Properties". There you get a list of team meetings User:Bob_Morris attended, although no such data is on that page. Semantic navigation is not a short term goal, but in fact the current funding commits us to experiment with Semantic Media Wiki (SMW) as an annotation mechanism. What better than our own wiki to do this? --Bob Morris 22:08, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
This is really interesting. We could add a second sentence so that the requirement reads as follows: "Information of interest to visitors should be accessible via easily found links on the main page. The full content of the web site should be semantically navigable via tags and properties." (I'm just guessing at the phrasing here.) Timothy McPhillips 15:19, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
I would say "... semantically navigable via category hierarchies, property values, and queries." --Bob Morris 15:27, 13 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Position project with respect to related projects.
I think this might be a bit tough to situate ourselves w.r.t. many other projects, especially since we probably don't know what all the other projects are. Maybe this could be subsumed under the previous item ("summarize") or rephrased as "position in a broader context" (what are we doing, what aren't we doing).--BertramLudaescher 18:12, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
It is hard. We can't afford to post a direct comparison between FP and every project out there. I also agree that the summary might include the material needed by others to see how we're different from other projects they know about. It may be sufficient to briefly describe the greater context in which we are working, together with a concise description of what we are doing in that larger space specifically.--Timothy McPhillips 23:54, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Outward-facing
Sounds good to me. However, I think this should not exclude the possibility of a separate project collaboration space (web-based!?) for all things project management related. For example, draft charters and requirements may or may not be on the public page. --BertramLudaescher 18:23, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
Absolutely. There is nothing here that says we can't have a distinct web-based collaboration environment that isn't public. --Timothy McPhillips 23:54, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
We just need to keep in mind the broader committment to openness. --Paul J. Morris 14:28, 26 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Branded
Agreed. The current site mixes FP with other related projects / site info that is clearly not FP. Having an FP site / branding will help understand visitors whether or not they are looking at the FP project site. --BertramLudaescher 18:27, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
  • Provide contact information for project personnel, one of whom should be designated as the point of contact for site visitors who would like additional information about FP (including how to use).
Contact for how to use is likely to change in year 3, at least under original plan of someone to help with deployments. --Paul J. Morris 14:31, 26 April 2011 (EDT)