[ckan-dev] The future of resources.

[Seb Bacon]

Pending being posted to ckan-discuss, just to add a big plus one to
the general gist of this proposal.

Seb

On 24 January 2011 09:37, David Raznick <david.raznick at okfn.org> wrote:
> Hello
> I have almost completed the work for ticket http://ckan.org/ticket/826.  See
> https://bitbucket.org/kindly/ckan/changeset/5769ff6ac34f.  (do not pull yet)
>
> I do not think anyone will be happy with it, but regardless I think it
> should stand.   Hopefully it will displease all with equal measure.
> It adds a config option that means you can add more resource fields.   i.e
> you could add a alternative_url field.  The new fields act as if they were
> normal database fields to the developer/form designer. So they are
> attributes on an object the same way url, description and hash are.  You can
> search on them too using the sql backend.  Here are a list of the pros and
> cons I can think of.
> Pros.
>  * Simple
>  * The smallest change I can think of to complete the ticket, and give
> clients the custom extra fields they need in the short term.
>  * The status quo has not changed concerning resources.
> Cons.
>  * It will make relational purists unhappy as it uses a json (in fact just a
> dict jsononifed)  field.
>  * Will make nosql advocates unhappy as this is the thing they are designed
> to do.
>  * Will make semantic web advocates unhappy as it adds nothing (and possibly
> even muddies) the classification of these resources.
>  * Will make wiki style collaboration enthusiasts unhappy as it does not
> give the flexibility they need.
>  * It makes me unhappy for the all the above reasons.
> I still think the pros outweigh the cons.
> So onto the topic what we need to do with resources in the long run.   Here
> are my opinions.
>  *  Resources should be made first class citizens in ckan.  For the simple
> reason that essentially THEY ARE THE DATA.  I have added a
> ticket http://ckan.org/ticket/922  that outlines this.
>  *  They should at least have their own form.  We can not squeeze all the
> information we need to describe them properly into a small table in
> packages.
>  *  There should be means of versioning and dating them
> properly amongst each other.  e.g  a way of saying this is the latest
> version of the csv file and it was from this date on this topic.  I think
> manual versioning is better here than against a package (the packages
> version should just pick up the latest resource version).
>  *  We should give people the option of duplicating them.
>  *  We should be providing tools, access, guidance and lookups to
> ontologies, to help people classify the data/resources properly.
>  *  We should give tools beyond just previewing the data, to actually help
> people semantically analyse and convert the data itself.  Stuffing in a link
> to a random excel file is not that great
>  *  Potentially provide basic visualisations of the resource.
>  *  Potentially develop, host and encourage data
> cleaning/augmenting/clustering tools (like google refine), to help people
> get their data in good state.
> So the work on them is not nearly over...
>
> Regards
> David
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-dev mailing list
> ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-dev
>
>



-- 
skype: seb.bacon
mobile: 07790 939224
land: 0207 183 9618
web: http://baconconsulting.co.uk