Re: [LogiLogi-list] LogiLogi VS Wiki

> > What LogiLogi adds to this is a  hierarchy (Philosophy/Aristotle/Freedom)
> > through a tagging system and rating from multiple points of view.
> 
> Fabulous ... congratulations. But my point remains unsettled, if only in my
> own mind: I can see how this would make Logi perhaps a superior variant of wiki
> ... am I on track here?

First of all differentiating from Wikis is not meanth defensively. My last reply 
might have been formulated a bit ambiguous in this respect.

You are on and off track. Yes you can say that LogiLogi has Wiki-capabilities,
but the essence of LogiLogi is not in this. Wiki-like-editing is just a nice 
feature, not what it really is about.
 
> > As Wiki's are defined by open edits for all, and generally a flat structure,
> > LogiLogi is different enough to allow for a different term.
>
> I'm sorry, "a different term" doesn't mean anything concrete to me.

Let's try this comparison: Is a Wiki a Content Management System ?

It uses web-scripts and forms, it allows people to add documents to a site, 
and edit their contents, and publish them with no need for HTML-skills...

So yes Wiki's are CMSses. But would we be capable of talking about them easily
and clearly in most contexts if we did away with the word Wiki ?

No, not in my opinion.

Now LogiLogi: It is a web-app, it allows people to add and edit documents, 
but the way in which the documents are named, linked, have to compete with 
eachother, and are displayed depending on the users preferences makes that
a different term is easy. Of course it first of all refers to the concrete
implementation of LogiLogi (Manta) that we are creating, and from there to 
the philosophy behind it. And what it will do from there is up to you and
other people that might deem this system and philosophy usefull...

> Substantially: open access is not definitionally required for wiki. (If I
> closed my Wiki, wiki it would remain.) As for "flat structure" ... Logi uses
> something else? That's the sort of design specification I was looking for on
> the site.

Yes: Extracted from my post to the Citizendium-list:
http://en.logilogi.org/MetaLogi/DifferentLevelsOfAudience

> FWIW I'm looking for a system that will allow me to "hook into" the basic
> wiki foundation, to extend it.

This will not be very easy with LogiLogi Manta as it currently is being 
developped. Although splitting LogiLogi up into separate Webservices is
the first thing on the list after LogiLogi Manta goes live.

If you are in a hurry and just want a wiki, this might be something:

http://api.rails-engines.org/wiki_engine/

> Have you done anything like UML? (I do tech_docs for a living ... I know 
> what a burden this is.)

No, the idea is that in using Agile Development techniques and a platform 
that supports it (Rails), coding something is almost as fast as creating a 
full blown spec for it.

What comes closest is this, generated from the database-layout:

http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/logilogi/trunk/doc/diagram.png?view=markup

(updated automatically, on changes, but quite stable now...)

> > This interests me materially as there's a substantial "co-authoring" component
> > in my project (http://bentrem.sycks.net/gnodal/mandate.html).
>
> *blink* Odd ... I don't understand how this pointed at mandate.html ... it's
> as though Thunderbird imposed some auto-completion. I hate that.

I must admit that it was not Thunderbird but me. As your e-mail was formatted
in HTML and my mail-reader (a stone-age, Linux console based reader by the 
strange name of mutt) could not handle that, I copied your message from my
browser and that lost me the link, and as the mandate was listed as: A brief 
description listing the projects intentions, this seemed to me to be the 
quickest way for casual list-readers to grasp what your project was about.

> > I think LogiLogi could be just the project for you. Of course LogiLogi does
> > not have Politics as it's primary objective, but it can be very usefull for
> > people that want to be or become, or discuss things, as informed citizens.
> 
> huh huh ... how does "primary objective" come to qualify the underlying
> mechanics? And anyhow, where did "Politics" come into this at all?

The mandate is written in quite political language: citizens, public 
deliberation, community, concerns, participate, public policy. It must have
put me on the wrong leg regarding what motivated it...

> > Of course LogiLogi also has it's limits. Chatting will for example never 
> > be a part of LogiLogi.
>
> Now, that's a good example of what I mean by "cross-channel transactions" ...
> a challenge to integration. )I might not choose to include Chat, but IM has its
> good uses. If a user can benefit from it, as an architect it isn't my role to
> block him.)

My approach is that good web-project has a clear goal, clear means, and 
clear limits. The web is increasingly about narrow applications that are 
good at what they do because they are limited, and can share value with 
other applications (google maps, RSS). That is also why after Manta the 
first thing will be dividing LogiLogi into separate webservices.

(So yes, IM is great, and should be used, but LogiLogi plays a different
ball-game...)

greetings,

Wybo Wiersma