[ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?

Ross Jones ross at servercode.co.uk
Mon Dec 9 09:57:42 UTC 2013

Hi Mark,

I definitely agree that renaming groups would be a good thing, I’m not overly keen on “Themes” as the replacement though. I always think of them as Collections but perhaps that’s not clear either.

I’m keen on datahub.io, for instance, re-instating Groups to be used as curated lists, but I don’t have a clear idea on how we could implement it without suffering from the spam problem again.  My current (vague) thoughts are that you can create as many groups as you want as long as you are part of an organization. Any ideas on how you might provide access control for the renamed Groups? 


On 9 Dec 2013, at 09:50, Mark Wainwright <mark.wainwright at okfn.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Another suggestion from me, to rename 'groups'. I think the meaning of
> this is completely unclear to most users (including me). The name
> "Groups" is a hang-over from the days when they basically had to
> fulfil the function of what are now "Organizations" as well.
> A number of CKAN sites have written front-ends in which groups are
> renamed as something more comprehensible, usually "Themes". Is it time
> for CKAN to bite the bullet and make this the default? I certainly
> think it would be clearer.
> More contentiously, what about renaming "Organizations" to
> "Publishers", as many sites have also done?
> Mark
> -- 
> Business development and user engagement manager
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> Empowering through Open Knowledge
> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  http://ckan.org  |  @CKANproject
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-discuss mailing list
> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss

More information about the ckan-discuss mailing list