Difference between revisions of "'Ontology Design Patterns':Development"

Revision as of 14:06, 12 June 2008

This page is used to discuss new features between ODP administrators, testing templates or new extensions.

For tests or extension's example usage see Odp:Development/Tests

Adding red asterisk for required fields in sf's css (issue described in this feedback's page: Feedback:Required_fields)
Scenarios
- use (with page-inclusion, same as elements).
  - Are we sure?: I like the current solution, does not make the page too big (and difficult to read...) enrico
- Moving all the content to a Scenario's page
- [then] delete the properties Scenario and CPInstantiationExample for the fields 'Scenarios' and 'Examples (OWL files)

Mail services
- when a new account request is posted, send e-mail to bureaucrats
- newsletter
- ~~Watch list with e-mail advertising: Improving the mediawiki feature 'Watch list' with email~~ Mediawiki already does it.

Reviews
- 'ask for review'
Create the Content OP Form (Template is the same as Content OP Proposal)
browsing catalogue's owl through KANZAKI stylesheets (courtesy of http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/)
replacing all application images .GIF and .JPG with equivalents .PNG or .SVG

Distinguishing Open and QC Reviews (high priority)
- each Proposed Content OP has the possibility to be reviewed from its page by clicking on 'post a review'. But if you are not a member of the QC you face an error page.
- I would like to fix this in the following way:
  - We allow all registered user to post a review but we distinguish QC reviews from open ones.
  - Is it possible to have only one link in the page (the one that is already there) and to redirect the user to either an 'Open Review' if (s)he is not a QC member, or to the official review if (s)he is a QC member?
- Motivations are the following:
  - The regular discussion pages are not effectively perceived from users.
  - We want actually an open review mechanism as well as an official one.
  - It is bad that a user is faced with an error page when his/her intent is to post a comment on a wiki. At least (s)he should be redirected to the correct page where is allowed to post. However, t would be much better to make such process transparent to the user (as described above).

[Reviews] Automatically insert the current version id when submitting a new Review not using a direct link from the proposal's page
Addedd support for image file types: PNG, SVG
Send article by e-mail extension (only for sysop)
Scenarios
- Created pages: Scenarios, Template:All scenarios
- New category CPExample or Scenario for a new kind of page
- Template and form for scenarios (Description (Description), Image (GraphicallyRepresentedBy), OWL file (OWLImplementation -URL-) ).
- Create the property 'scenarioOf' to link the Scenario's page to the pattern(s)
- Adding a link for adding scenarios, and including the list of the related scenarios ~~(with page-inclusion, same as elements)~~

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==ToDo List==
-*'''Scenarios'''
+* Adding red asterisk for required fields in sf's css (issue described in this feedback's page: [[Feedback:Required_fields]])
+* '''Scenarios'''
 ** use (with page-inclusion, same as elements).
 *** '''Are we sure?''': I like the current solution, does not make the page too big (and difficult to read...) [[User:EnricoDaga|enrico]]