(Created page with "==Development follow up== ===April 15, 2015=== It did start the prototyping of the semantics for EWB Projects in Appropedia. I did these developments on a wiki on my side. The...") |
(→Development follow up: looks good) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
#On another hand, if you look at the semantic properties listed in this page, It is feasible to treat the Model to develop as something a bit more generic than EWB. Of course, I do not suggest to do a global project management ontology, but to treat ''EWB Challenge project'' as a Project Type. This way, with this [http://smw.infrastructures.cc/index.php?title=EWB_Challenge_Project_Test_1 Example page], instead of writing in the Model EWB Challenge Project, I would put the semantic property "Has type" in the header and EWB Challenge Project would appear as well. As for the other properties, they could be quite generic, as Affiliated University would be my suggestion for EWB Challenge University, which is something that happens in different project. That way, we could query different or unique Types of project, to filter all projects affiliated with an institution, or only the EWB Challenge Project. My suggestion is to go generic, as it will be more flexible and adaptative and easier to put a form for a generic category than just a specific. | #On another hand, if you look at the semantic properties listed in this page, It is feasible to treat the Model to develop as something a bit more generic than EWB. Of course, I do not suggest to do a global project management ontology, but to treat ''EWB Challenge project'' as a Project Type. This way, with this [http://smw.infrastructures.cc/index.php?title=EWB_Challenge_Project_Test_1 Example page], instead of writing in the Model EWB Challenge Project, I would put the semantic property "Has type" in the header and EWB Challenge Project would appear as well. As for the other properties, they could be quite generic, as Affiliated University would be my suggestion for EWB Challenge University, which is something that happens in different project. That way, we could query different or unique Types of project, to filter all projects affiliated with an institution, or only the EWB Challenge Project. My suggestion is to go generic, as it will be more flexible and adaptative and easier to put a form for a generic category than just a specific. | ||
--[[User:Gcoulombe|Guillaume Coulombe]] ([[User talk:Gcoulombe|talk]]) 12:41, 15 April 2015 (PDT) | --[[User:Gcoulombe|Guillaume Coulombe]] ([[User talk:Gcoulombe|talk]]) 12:41, 15 April 2015 (PDT) | ||
:Thanks Guillaume, this looks good. | |||
:Re the 2 models, I like both. | |||
:I think your idea (treating ''EWB Challenge project'' as a Project Type) makes good sense. | |||
:That's my initial impression - I will look in more detail later at the required fields/data. Thank you! --[[User:Chriswaterguy|Chriswaterguy]] ([[User talk:Chriswaterguy|talk]]) 19:54, 15 April 2015 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 02:54, 16 April 2015
Development follow up
April 15, 2015
It did start the prototyping of the semantics for EWB Projects in Appropedia. I did these developments on a wiki on my side. The look is a bit different, but the wiki code will be pretty much the same. It is only the <div> encodings that could change a bit. Nothing that make us work more.
I would like input on 2 questions :
- Please give me your preference for the Look and feel of the Form: I did develop 2 models, one that is more Questionnaire style, one that is more Table type. Which one do you prefer? My favorite is the Questionnaire, but may be you want something more succint. Note : I'm still at prototype : English will get better ;-) - as well, data fields will be activated with the creation of the Semantic Properties pages, which I will only do on Appropedia site : this is why the answers are in redlink and the form reacting a bit so-so.
- On another hand, if you look at the semantic properties listed in this page, It is feasible to treat the Model to develop as something a bit more generic than EWB. Of course, I do not suggest to do a global project management ontology, but to treat EWB Challenge project as a Project Type. This way, with this Example page, instead of writing in the Model EWB Challenge Project, I would put the semantic property "Has type" in the header and EWB Challenge Project would appear as well. As for the other properties, they could be quite generic, as Affiliated University would be my suggestion for EWB Challenge University, which is something that happens in different project. That way, we could query different or unique Types of project, to filter all projects affiliated with an institution, or only the EWB Challenge Project. My suggestion is to go generic, as it will be more flexible and adaptative and easier to put a form for a generic category than just a specific.
--Guillaume Coulombe (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2015 (PDT)
- Thanks Guillaume, this looks good.
- Re the 2 models, I like both.
- I think your idea (treating EWB Challenge project as a Project Type) makes good sense.
- That's my initial impression - I will look in more detail later at the required fields/data. Thank you! --Chriswaterguy (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2015 (PDT)