Difference between revisions of "Wikilink use-cases"
Infomaniac (talk | contribs) |
Infomaniac (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | I'm a big fan of semantic markup and miss | + | I'm a big fan of [http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_Semantic_MediaWiki semantic markup] and miss the [http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Inline_queries inline query functionality of SMW]. I know that one of the goals of "The [[Platform]]" is to create a technology-independent ontology that uses a minimal set of markup available in various CMS platforms, including wikis. But it isn't so simple as I'd like it to be. Wordpress and similar CMS' have categories and tags, while WikiMedia has only categories. SMW has categories and semantic markup, which I think can be abused in a fashion to create tag-like structures. Additionally, on this site we have [[RecordAdmin]], which seems to give some similar functionality to semantic query, but can't be counted on to be available on other platforms (just as so the SMW extention) and I think the use-case for RA is not intended to substituted for SM. For this reason, I have tried to devise uses for categories that suit different use-cases like tag clouds and semantic markup. It hasn't been easy. Actually, I have been mulling these issues over for a few months, but this is the first time I have attempted to do so in writing. |
| − | One of the things | + | One of the things I don't like about using category, is the case where an article should belong to multiple categories not in a hierarchy, for example, tag clouds. I consider attempting to do so a misapplication of categories. MediaWiki doesn't have this separate use, and furthermore, I find annoying the verbosity of repeating the category markup multiple times in an article. |
| + | |||
| + | For this reason I created two templates: [[:template:tag|<nowiki>{{tag}}</nowiki>]] and [[:template:tags|<nowiki>{{tags}}</nowiki>]]. Orginally my intention was to use category like a tag cloud markup and avoid the surreptitious use of <nowiki>[[category:x]][[category:y]][[category:z]]</nowiki>. Then I saw that ''tag'' can be used to mark keywords inline and leave a visible link in context meanwhile creating or linking to a category by the same name. Second, <nowiki>{{tags|a|b|c|d}}</nowiki> was meant to quickly mark a page for keywords but make them hidden in context. Links implemented this way should naturally belong in the category hierarchy tags>tag, but otherwise are not necessarily hierarchical as is the intended use of category. | ||
The philosophy behind this use is certainly different than the hierarchical use of categories, and although I have not discussed it with the other guys on the site, no one's complained so-far ;). What I have observed is that from regular use of tags emerges an entirely different structure than categorizing an article into one or a few classes. | The philosophy behind this use is certainly different than the hierarchical use of categories, and although I have not discussed it with the other guys on the site, no one's complained so-far ;). What I have observed is that from regular use of tags emerges an entirely different structure than categorizing an article into one or a few classes. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
| − | Moreover, here we have a prevalent use of the ''see also'' section in articles, where links are loosely grouped instead of in context. This certainly is another separate use case that I think we should specify clearly. | + | Moreover, here we have a prevalent use of the ''see also'' section in articles, where links are loosely grouped instead of in context. This certainly is another separate use case that I think we should specify clearly, but I think this practice emerged in wikipedia specifically, and in some cases, for lack of a better alternative like tags or semantic markup. |
Revision as of 01:29, 7 April 2011
I'm a big fan of semantic markup and miss the inline query functionality of SMW. I know that one of the goals of "The Platform" is to create a technology-independent ontology that uses a minimal set of markup available in various CMS platforms, including wikis. But it isn't so simple as I'd like it to be. Wordpress and similar CMS' have categories and tags, while WikiMedia has only categories. SMW has categories and semantic markup, which I think can be abused in a fashion to create tag-like structures. Additionally, on this site we have RecordAdmin, which seems to give some similar functionality to semantic query, but can't be counted on to be available on other platforms (just as so the SMW extention) and I think the use-case for RA is not intended to substituted for SM. For this reason, I have tried to devise uses for categories that suit different use-cases like tag clouds and semantic markup. It hasn't been easy. Actually, I have been mulling these issues over for a few months, but this is the first time I have attempted to do so in writing.
One of the things I don't like about using category, is the case where an article should belong to multiple categories not in a hierarchy, for example, tag clouds. I consider attempting to do so a misapplication of categories. MediaWiki doesn't have this separate use, and furthermore, I find annoying the verbosity of repeating the category markup multiple times in an article.
For this reason I created two templates: {{tag}} and {{tags}}. Orginally my intention was to use category like a tag cloud markup and avoid the surreptitious use of [[category:x]][[category:y]][[category:z]]. Then I saw that tag can be used to mark keywords inline and leave a visible link in context meanwhile creating or linking to a category by the same name. Second, {{tags|a|b|c|d}} was meant to quickly mark a page for keywords but make them hidden in context. Links implemented this way should naturally belong in the category hierarchy tags>tag, but otherwise are not necessarily hierarchical as is the intended use of category.
The philosophy behind this use is certainly different than the hierarchical use of categories, and although I have not discussed it with the other guys on the site, no one's complained so-far ;). What I have observed is that from regular use of tags emerges an entirely different structure than categorizing an article into one or a few classes.
What I really need here are diagrams, but for the time being, I'll try to use words to express what I see in my mind's eye.
Moreover, here we have a prevalent use of the see also section in articles, where links are loosely grouped instead of in context. This certainly is another separate use case that I think we should specify clearly, but I think this practice emerged in wikipedia specifically, and in some cases, for lack of a better alternative like tags or semantic markup.
