|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | About [[Template:FormatInfo]]...
| + | Moved to [[Template talk:FormatInfo]]... |
| − | | + | |
| − | e.g. What fields are missing? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_file_format for ideas, but note that so many fields may be overkill.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | e.g. Should it be called ElectronicFormatInfo to avoid confusion?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Question 1 from CR: Is there a way to add signature information to your InfoBox style?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Question 2 from CR: How do we best reflect similar and different information for different versions?
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | (Sorry, I don't really know how I'm supposed to do "Talk" in this context! - CR)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : To use talk in this context, put a colon (:) before your sentence and then type, ultimately clicking on that second-from-the-right button that looks like a signature. If you're responding to a sentence with a colon in front of it, put two, a la ::. Regarding the infobox, I really feel there's some really hardcore well-made infoboxes out there, and it would behoove you to go and research those instead of re-inventing the wheel. --[[User:Jason Scott|Jason Scott]] ([[User talk:Jason Scott|talk]]) 03:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
| − | :: Do we really need a hardcore infobox (they can get quite complicated), when something simple like what Andy is proposing would be a good way to get started? If so could you point at an example of one you particularly like? [[User:Edsu|Edsu]] ([[User talk:Edsu|talk]]) 08:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
| − | :: I'll certainly be leaning on existing models, but I want to be careful about including everything as it may get in the way of contribution and, frankly, much of it is too ambiguous to be modelled directly and is better suited to prose/discussion. [[User:AndyJackson|AndyJackson]] ([[User talk:AndyJackson|talk]]) 13:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
| − | : I added a PRONOM option to the template. But perhaps it belongs in a separate template, like what Wikipedia does with its [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Authority_control Authority Control template]? The advantage to doing it separately is that it wouldn't clutter up the actual pertinent information with weird IDs and links, which could be located at the bottom of the page instead?
| + | |
| − | :: I have an idea about that - [[#PROPOSAL:_Two_Info_Boxes_Are_Better_Than_One|see below...]] [[User:AndyJackson|AndyJackson]] ([[User talk:AndyJackson|talk]]) 13:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | : Conditional logic has been added to the template; all parameters are now optional. The link to IANA has been moved to [[Template:Mimetype]]. And why is this discussion not taking place at [[Template talk:FormatInfo]]? [[User:Gphemsley|Gphemsley]] ([[User talk:Gphemsley|talk]]) 09:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
| − | :: Thanks! [[User:AndyJackson|AndyJackson]] ([[User talk:AndyJackson|talk]]) 13:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
| − | :: +1 for moving the conversation to [[Template_talk:FormatInfo]]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == What properties should be included? ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Here are list of sources of properties we could consider including:
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_file_format Wikipedia Infobox_file_format template]
| + | |
| − | * [http://test.linkeddatapronom.nationalarchives.gov.uk/vocabulary/pronom-vocabulary.htm PRONOM Vocabulary]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/sustain/sustain.shtml LoC sustainability factors], e.g. [http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/fdd/fdd000020.shtml here's the page for SVG 1.1].
| + | |
| − | * [http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/PubDat_203319.pdf Decision Criteria in Digital Preservation: What to Measure and How]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~becker/pubs/hamm_ipres2011.pdf Impact Assessment of Decision Criteria in Preservation Planning]
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Please add more if you know of them. However, as I've said before, I think massively complex models are dangerous unless the need for a machine-readable version of the information is clear. There's no point spending vast amounts of time marking un minutiae that are better served by prose.
| + | |
| − | [[User:AndyJackson|AndyJackson]] ([[User talk:AndyJackson|talk]]) 13:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == PROPOSAL: Two Info Boxes Are Better Than One ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | To avoid the more complex and fine-grained models getting in the way of contribution and readability, I propose we have two 'infoboxes':
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | * A short, simple one for 'basic information' (e.g. other identifiers like file extension, really simple stuff that most formats can be expected to have), which should always be there and is included at the top of the page.
| + | |
| − | * A longer, complex one for the details (e.g. licensing, PUIDs, etc.) that goes into a table at the bottom of the page.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Any field that is considered of interest can go in the longer one. Only critical discovery information goes in the short one. It should also look better than stuffing everything into one long thin box.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | What do you think?
| + | |
| − | [[User:AndyJackson|AndyJackson]] ([[User talk:AndyJackson|talk]]) 13:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
| + | |
