[ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
ross at servercode.co.uk
Mon Dec 9 10:50:12 UTC 2013
Actually working on datahub.io and data.gov.uk they are more similar than they appear. Both currently require permission to create an Organization, neither use Groups. Our data.gov.uk themes are created as metadata on the dataset (both primary and secondary themes).
To treat them as themes *may* be problematic as behind the scenes Groups and Organizations are almost identical (with some special case functionality for organizations).
I guess I am not so excited about it as I was when I read your first mail :)
On 9 Dec 2013, at 10:41, Mark Wainwright <mark.wainwright at okfn.org> wrote:
> My idea was simply to rename them, which doesn't address the access question.
> I think we should recognise that datahub.io is an outlier in the sense
> that it is not like most CKAN installations. Most of these are
> governments' or other large organisations' publishing platforms, and
> they use the groups feature, if at all, to let people search/browse by
> cross-departmental themes like 'environment', 'crime' or whatever.
> datahub.io could theme them to be called whatever it likes though I
> don't think 'Collections' means much in any case. 'Themes' might still
> be OK though you might want something like 'Lists', in that they would
> be a bit like people's Amazon lists ('my favourite datasets').
> As for the (unrelated) access question for datahub.io, I'd just
> suggest an 'approval' system based on userID. When someone signs up
> they'd get a message saying 'Thanks for signing up, to do anything on
> the datahub please tell us a bit about yourself', this would be stuck
> in a list waiting for approval after which they could do whatever they
> On 09/12/2013, Ross Jones <ross at servercode.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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?
>>> 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
>>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ckan-discuss
> Business development and user engagement manager
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> Empowering through Open Knowledge
> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn | http://ckan.org | @CKANproject
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ckan-discuss