Opinion (fairly strong): Is a "TWiRB" now the best option for Resource Listing (NOT GitHub)?
138 views
Skip to first unread message
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 18, 2018, 6:59:09 AM6/18/18
to tiddl...@googlegroups.com
TWiRB = TiddlyWiki internet Resource Base. (The IMDb for TW.)
I have been very struck by David Gifford's list of resources at TiddlyToolmap. Its increasingly used and welcomed.
It is having good "synergistic effects" in that a user wanting to look at past solutions can find them MUCH more easily.
This seriously leverages innovation.
It is quite obvious its having tangible positive effects.
Let this be not just David's work for us. But, rather a pledge to help him solve the "info fragmentation" problem TW has permanently, by being inspired by his work and building off it.
---
David's list is not itself a TiddlyWiki. I don't see the problem. Yes, it would be optimally best if it were a TW, since that is the general fetish. BUT, I am more interested in what happens than any theory about what "should" have happened that didn't.
It works.
---
Over on GitHub there is serious work of another kind going on, from a different perspective, that leads off in other directions. Good ones to do with ideas of automated data harvesting & inter-working.
But the better elegance of GitHub I do NOT think has in anyway yet grasped the nettle of "resources-in-the-wild". Why should it?
BUT IF the idea is that a good resource list can ONLY come though some GitHub mediated system you need to belong to in some way. Well, forget it. That is wrong and actually fogs the waters.
---
My point remains, outside GitHub, it is not the driving force in logging resources. Why? Because most TW users don't use it. In other words, its not a definer.
The easiest I can say it is: Rather than WE adapt to GitHub, GitHub adapt to US.
---
This is why I suggested that a good interim step is to help focus less on the "method" of communicating Important Resources and more on a basic "data structure for a resource". By concentrating on getting the "CHUNKS" of info correct enough they can be imported into anything. Combined. Re-done. In a manageable way. That seems best for longevity.
I wrote a post about it to Dev group here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywikidev/kz_EvphpMzY
It is maybe not understood?
I think it is important. David's pragmatism has, basically, given the BASIS for a solution to a long-term problem.
I would like we find some kind of scope of how to organise such info to move on. A data structure seems easiest.
David's list is approaching 600. If it gets much longer it will become unwieldy to develop from.
---
Allora.
I said most of what I wanted to say & not too badly.
Josiah
I have been very struck by David Gifford's list of resources at TiddlyToolmap. Its increasingly used and welcomed.
It is having good "synergistic effects" in that a user wanting to look at past solutions can find them MUCH more easily.
This seriously leverages innovation.
It is quite obvious its having tangible positive effects.
Let this be not just David's work for us. But, rather a pledge to help him solve the "info fragmentation" problem TW has permanently, by being inspired by his work and building off it.
---
David's list is not itself a TiddlyWiki. I don't see the problem. Yes, it would be optimally best if it were a TW, since that is the general fetish. BUT, I am more interested in what happens than any theory about what "should" have happened that didn't.
It works.
---
Over on GitHub there is serious work of another kind going on, from a different perspective, that leads off in other directions. Good ones to do with ideas of automated data harvesting & inter-working.
But the better elegance of GitHub I do NOT think has in anyway yet grasped the nettle of "resources-in-the-wild". Why should it?
BUT IF the idea is that a good resource list can ONLY come though some GitHub mediated system you need to belong to in some way. Well, forget it. That is wrong and actually fogs the waters.
---
My point remains, outside GitHub, it is not the driving force in logging resources. Why? Because most TW users don't use it. In other words, its not a definer.
The easiest I can say it is: Rather than WE adapt to GitHub, GitHub adapt to US.
---
This is why I suggested that a good interim step is to help focus less on the "method" of communicating Important Resources and more on a basic "data structure for a resource". By concentrating on getting the "CHUNKS" of info correct enough they can be imported into anything. Combined. Re-done. In a manageable way. That seems best for longevity.
I wrote a post about it to Dev group here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/tiddlywikidev/kz_EvphpMzY
It is maybe not understood?
I think it is important. David's pragmatism has, basically, given the BASIS for a solution to a long-term problem.
I would like we find some kind of scope of how to organise such info to move on. A data structure seems easiest.
David's list is approaching 600. If it gets much longer it will become unwieldy to develop from.
---
Allora.
I said most of what I wanted to say & not too badly.
Josiah
HansWobbe
Jun 19, 2018, 5:53:33 AM6/19/18
to TiddlyWiki
Josiah:
Good points,well made.
Regards, Hans
TWiRB = TiddlyWiki internet Resource Base. (The IMDb for TW.)
I have been very struck by David Gifford's list of resources at TiddlyToolmap. Its increasingly used and welcomed.
...
Mark S.
Jun 19, 2018, 10:43:04 AM6/19/18
to TiddlyWiki
The biggest problem with the GitHub system is that everything has to wait for approval. And sometimes those things appear to be forgotten. This dis-incentivizes the desire to contribute. Even after contributing, one may have to wait months before it gets into the main TiddlyWiki.com site.
Of course, it doesn't help that the GH approach is endlessly draconian, but people might be more excited to thread the needle if results were more immediate.
We were told back in February that there was a new system coming that would make contributions easier, possibly within a multi-user TW-like environment leveraging AWS* . I wonder if that is still in the pipe-line?
The problem with Toolmap is that it is (1) Proprietary and (2) Maintained by a single person.
You either understand the concerns of proprietary software or you don't. If you've ever had a proprietary solution whisked away from under you, then you do.
But this line from the TOS is concerning:
"Your stuff may be transferred as assets of Dynalist if we're bought by another company."
Problem (2) is the same as with the current GitHub solution. It's also unclear what I should be submitting. If I make a small macro or filter to help someone out, should I be bothering David about it?
I think the best ultimate solution would be a MediaWiki type wiki environment where multiple individuals can contribute.
-- Mark
*I'm relying on my memory here, so apologies if I have the details wrong.
Of course, it doesn't help that the GH approach is endlessly draconian, but people might be more excited to thread the needle if results were more immediate.
We were told back in February that there was a new system coming that would make contributions easier, possibly within a multi-user TW-like environment leveraging AWS* . I wonder if that is still in the pipe-line?
The problem with Toolmap is that it is (1) Proprietary and (2) Maintained by a single person.
You either understand the concerns of proprietary software or you don't. If you've ever had a proprietary solution whisked away from under you, then you do.
But this line from the TOS is concerning:
"Your stuff may be transferred as assets of Dynalist if we're bought by another company."
Problem (2) is the same as with the current GitHub solution. It's also unclear what I should be submitting. If I make a small macro or filter to help someone out, should I be bothering David about it?
I think the best ultimate solution would be a MediaWiki type wiki environment where multiple individuals can contribute.
-- Mark
*I'm relying on my memory here, so apologies if I have the details wrong.
Diego Mesa
Jun 19, 2018, 4:55:50 PM6/19/18
to TiddlyWiki
Mark,
The biggest problem with the GitHub system is that everything has to wait for approval. And sometimes those things appear to be forgotten. This dis-incentivizes the desire to contribute. Even after contributing, one may have to wait months before it gets into the main TiddlyWiki.com site.
I think this is very very true - as someone whose spent more than a little time on these groups you see it happen all the time.
We were told back in February that there was a new system coming that would make contributions easier,
I think this is crucial. There is much discussion of this, but no clear sense of a timeline or a series of required steps/milestones to get there.
@TiddlyTweeter
Jun 20, 2018, 7:37:11 AM6/20/18
to TiddlyWiki
Mark S. wrote:
We were told back in February that there was a new system coming that would make contributions easier, possibly within a multi-user TW-like environment leveraging AWS* . I wonder if that is still in the pipe-line?
Not sure. I saw that too. Even if working I think it devolves again to the issue I was trying to get to. Which is not so much the platform as a " basic data structure" so that resource pointers can be easily used elsewhere.
The problem with Toolmap is that it is (1) Proprietary and (2) Maintained by a single person.
Dynalink does support OPML export. TiddlyToolmap is fairly undifferentiated internally. Its basically a simple OPML style outline. One thing per line within a "tag" organised system. Its overall structure's simplicity has up-sides.
Problem (2) is the same as with the current GitHub solution. It's also unclear what I should be submitting.
If I make a small macro or filter to help someone out, should I be bothering David about it?
Right. David has mainly concentrated on replete plugins. They are easier to spot and tend to a "finished package" that is more identifiable. David does not have time or resources to test or go into detail.
As far as I understand it he benefits if people are mainly "plugin spotting" in case he misses one.
Regarding Mark S. work ... some of it is definitely worth bothering about. I know personally you made some solutions, partly in response to me, that were really excellent and well polished. I'm thinking of the tweaking you did of Riz' "TW Tweet Saver" that auto converts in-line #hastags in Tiddlers used to create and post to Twitter to TW tags on save. And the "HTML Snapshot" that captures the rendered HTML of a Tiddler and creates a new pure HTML Tiddler from that. Very useful small tools ... And Many, Many More ...
That said, I want to underline again what David is doing is immensely helpful. What I did not realise till recently is he has done such "cataloguing" before for TWC at TiddlyVault.
I think the best ultimate solution would be a MediaWiki type wiki environment where multiple individuals can contribute.
Right. My thought was to see if there are ways we can garner and utilise his data already. Part of a step towards that kind of idea... or anything else that can take an import of records with fields.
Best wishes
Josiah
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages