[ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?

• Previous message: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
• Next message: [ckan-discuss] Fwd: [datahub-discuss] Update of CKANClient-J
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Thanks all for input. I've created an issue which I think sums it up
(even if Sean wishes we would just leave it alone ...):

https://github.com/okfn/ckan/issues/1395

Mark


On 10/12/2013, Aaron McGlinchy <McGlinchyA at landcareresearch.co.nz> wrote:
> I'm interested that Mark's secondary but noted "more contentious" suggestion
> of renaming Organisations to Publishers hasn't attracted much (any?)
> comment.
>
> For me Groups is not so much an issue, as is the use of the term
> Organisation.  Groups might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it does
> reflect in a general sense what it is designed to do - enable grouping of
> somehow related datasets.  Organisations however is another kettle of fish.
> For us as an individual Science Organisation setting up CKAN as an
> institutional repository from which to publish our data, Organisation is
> non-functional - we are one organisation.  Our uploading of datasets and
> authorisation model would be at a finer level (we've not decided on the best
> way yet) such as Science Team, Project, Researcher, Research Portfolio,
> Discipline... - lots of potential ways to cut the cake (but Organisation is
> not one of them (and Publisher is better but would not be ideal either)).
>
> This issue stems from the beauty of CKAN in that it is able to be applied at
> scales from say an individual/individual team up to pan organisation
> National Data Catalogues (or even to a global level).  The result of this is
> that I don't think you will find a single term (for either Groups or
> Organisations) that satisfies every use case, which leads to a natural
> desire for the terms to be customisable in their outward presentation.
>
> Mark noted that a drawback of customisation is that it would not get
> translated into the other languages.  I personally wouldn't see that as an
> insurmountable barrier, and would see the benefit of the increased
> flexibility in being able to configure the label used for these key terms as
> far outweighing the language issue.  A drop down with some popular choices
> (that have associated translations) would be a start, but if a custom term
> was used then the sysadmin could either populate translation terms, or at
> worst the translated sites default to using the translation for the generic
> terms Organisation or Group as they do now.
>
> The fact that we are having this conversation, and that a number of CKAN
> instances have made modifications to change the terms used on their site
> suggests that it is an issue many people want a better solution to. I think
> it would be a shame if the end result was we agreed new generic words for
> Group and Organisation, and that in 12 months we're having this same
> conversation because those words are (still) not satisfying needs of the
> range of CKAN users.
>
> So I'm +1 for ability to customise the labels of the Organisation (and
> secondary priority to Groups).
>
> Aaron
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ckan-discuss [mailto:ckan-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of
> ckan-discuss-request at lists.okfn.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2013 10:39 a.m.
> To: ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: ckan-discuss Digest, Vol 47, Issue 7
>
> Send ckan-discuss mailing list submissions to
>         ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         ckan-discuss-request at lists.okfn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         ckan-discuss-owner at lists.okfn.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of ckan-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Groups -> themes? (Sean Hammond)
>    2. Re: Groups -> themes? (Sean Hammond)
>    3. Re: datastore_search_sql (Adri? Mercader)
>    4. Re: Groups -> themes? (Ian Ward)
>    5. Re: Groups -> themes? (Mark Wainwright)
>    6. Re: datastore_search_sql (Adri? Mercader)
>    7. Re: Groups -> themes? (Sean Hammond)
>    8. Re: Groups -> themes? (Mark Wainwright)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:26:12 +0100
> From: Sean Hammond <sean.hammond at okfn.org>
> To: ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
> Message-ID: <52A5EF24.2080906 at okfn.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Here's what each is for, as far as I understand (I agree - it would probably
> be useful to have something like this in the user guide):
>
>  > 1. organizations: maximum one per datasets, affects permissions for
>> editing and viewing
>
> Are about auth, for controlling who can view, edit, create and publish
> datasets. (I agree that Publishers might have been a better name for this.)
>
>> 2. dataset type: exactly one per dataset, can't be changed after
>> creation, affects dataset schema, has separate search page
>
> Are for when you want to have different types of datasets that have
> different schemas. (This is a technical topic, belongs more in the Writing
> extensions docs than in the user guide.)
>
>> 3. groups: anyone on the instance can create, not typically harvested
>> with datasets, can store extra information in the group, may have
>> multiple group types (similar to tag vocabulary fields)
>
> Are for when you want to group datasets together under a theme e.g.
> climate data etc. You don't want just anyone to be able to add datasets to
> your carefully curated climate group, so only users who are members of the
> group are allowed to add datasets to or remove them from the group.
>
> Unlike with organizations, being a member of a group doesn't give you
> permission to create or edit the datasets in the groups, groups are about
> collecting existing datasets together into groups, they're not about
> publishing datasets.
>
>> 4. tag vocabularies: must be able to edit dataset to change, limited
>> selections, cannot store extra information in the tag, associated with
>> a particular dataset field (may have multiple vocabularies, similar to
>> group types)
>
> These are just for when you want to add a custom field to the dataset
> schema, e.g. "Genre", and you want that field to be a drop-down list with a
> fixed number of possible values. There's an API for adding and removing from
> the list of possible values. Again this is a technical topic that belongs
> more in the extension writing docs than in the user guide.
>
>> 5. free-form tags: must be able to edit dataset to change, any
>> suitable text, cannot store extra information in the tag, one set of
>> tags per dataset
>
> Completely free-form tagging
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 17:31:34 +0100
> From: Sean Hammond <sean.hammond at okfn.org>
> To: ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
> Message-ID: <52A5F066.40108 at okfn.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>> I guess that this same thread if a fine example of why I'm -1 in
>> principle for changing it. 5 people agree that "Groups" is not great,
>> but they all have chosen different replacements, all perfectly valid,
>> with slight nuances and adapted to their specific sites. Will changing
>> "Groups" for "Themes", "Collections" or "Categories" make everyone
>> happy? I doubt it, and we will end up with all code, api, docs, etc
>> different from the frontend, as we have now with packages/datasets.
>> Big renames are always a pain.
>
> I'm with Adria on this. I was against using groups and organizations as the
> names, but now that we have them, I say we call a moratorium on renaming
> features in CKAN until after we've purged the word "package"
> from all code and docs!
>
> P.S. I don't think resource is a very good name either!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:44:52 +0000
> From: Adri? Mercader <adria.mercader at okfn.org>
> To: Francesco Salvadore <f.salvadore at cineca.it>
> Cc: CKAN discuss <ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org>, CKAN Development
>         Discussions <ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] datastore_search_sql
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAGJR8iLudqovvOVDS8JmkCjsdC=9SXZQu5VTZZEXoQvO1kqDWg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi,
>
> This has now been merged into master and the new 2.1.2 branch [1]
>
> Francesco, not sure why you needed to remove the decorator. You will need it
> if you want non-logged in users to be able to query the datastore.
>
> Adri?
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/okfn/ckan/tree/release-v2.1.2
>
> On 9 December 2013 13:00, Francesco Salvadore <f.salvadore at cineca.it>
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I just had to delete the decorator in logic/auth.py:
>> @p.toolkit.auth_allow_anonymous_access
>>
>> and it seems to work properly in CKAN 2.1, I hope I did it correctly,
>>
>> thanks a lot for the great support!
>> Francesco
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Henrik Aagaard S?rensen" <BU1G at tmf.kk.dk>
>> To: "David Raznick" <david.raznick at okfn.org>
>> Cc: "Francesco Salvadore" <f.salvadore at cineca.it>, "CKAN Development
>> Discussions" <ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org>, "CKAN discuss"
>> <ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org>, "joel natividad"
>> <joel.natividad at ontodia.com>
>> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 12:12:11 PM
>> Subject: SV: [ckan-discuss] datastore_search_sql
>>
>> It does seem to fix the issue at our installation :)
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:30:26 -0500
> From: Ian Ward <ian at excess.org>
> To: Sean Hammond <sean.hammond at okfn.org>
> Cc: "ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org" <ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAA3rUNeLdg6y4rWpP7cvVq7x_PbJNmTb1noMBUe2tTwUUmMBtA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Sean Hammond <sean.hammond at okfn.org>
> wrote:
>> I'm with Adria on this. I was against using groups and organizations
>> as the names, but now that we have them, I say we call a moratorium on
>> renaming features in CKAN until after we've purged the word "package"
>> from all code and docs!
>
> Or we just never change them, and document "package" as the internal name
> for datasets.
>
> Ian
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:39:55 +0000
> From: Mark Wainwright <mark.wainwright at okfn.org>
> To: Sean Hammond <sean.hammond at okfn.org>
> Cc: ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAJhtavY03BxazJbNhpOrchP1WSp1YooS2oymRCmmqcG134n=yw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>> I'm with Adria on this. I was against using groups and organizations
>> as the names, but now that we have them, I say we call a moratorium on
>> renaming features in CKAN until after we've purged the word "package"
>> from all code and docs!
>
> Hmm, I don't know that such behind-the-scenes purging is as important as a
> good UI, but anyway, surely 'after we've purged the word "package"' is the
> *worst* possible time to go tinkering with other terms in the UI - since
> it's then too late to purge them from the code and docs at the same time.
>
> Mark
>
>
> --
> Business development and user engagement manager The Open Knowledge
> Foundation Empowering through Open Knowledge http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |
> http://ckan.org  |  @CKANproject
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:47:43 +0000
> From: Adri? Mercader <adria.mercader at okfn.org>
> To: Francesco Salvadore <f.salvadore at cineca.it>
> Cc: CKAN discuss <ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org>, CKAN Development
>         Discussions <ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org>
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] datastore_search_sql
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAGJR8iKjea+f2wFc4MXXqW_SjytQ-fZbaQy--e+TvjSnLwrZ4w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Sorry Francesco,
> you are absolutely right, p.toolkit.auth_allow_anonymous_access is not
> available on 2.1.x
> I'll push a fix ASAP
>
> Adri?
>
> On 9 December 2013 16:44, Adri? Mercader <adria.mercader at okfn.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This has now been merged into master and the new 2.1.2 branch [1]
>>
>> Francesco, not sure why you needed to remove the decorator. You will
>> need it if you want non-logged in users to be able to query the
>> datastore.
>>
>> Adri?
>>
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/okfn/ckan/tree/release-v2.1.2
>>
>> On 9 December 2013 13:00, Francesco Salvadore <f.salvadore at cineca.it>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I just had to delete the decorator in logic/auth.py:
>>> @p.toolkit.auth_allow_anonymous_access
>>>
>>> and it seems to work properly in CKAN 2.1,
>>> I hope I did it correctly,
>>>
>>> thanks a lot for the great support!
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Henrik Aagaard S?rensen" <BU1G at tmf.kk.dk>
>>> To: "David Raznick" <david.raznick at okfn.org>
>>> Cc: "Francesco Salvadore" <f.salvadore at cineca.it>, "CKAN Development
>>> Discussions" <ckan-dev at lists.okfn.org>, "CKAN discuss"
>>> <ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org>, "joel natividad"
>>> <joel.natividad at ontodia.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 12:12:11 PM
>>> Subject: SV: [ckan-discuss] datastore_search_sql
>>>
>>> It does seem to fix the issue at our installation :)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 20:42:12 +0100
> From: Sean Hammond <sean.hammond at okfn.org>
> To: ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
> Message-ID: <52A61D14.3060409 at okfn.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 09.12.2013 18:39, Mark Wainwright wrote:
>>> I'm with Adria on this. I was against using groups and organizations as
>>> the names, but now that we have them, I say we call a moratorium on
>>> renaming features in CKAN until after we've purged the word "package"
>>> from all code and docs!
>>
>> Hmm, I don't know that such behind-the-scenes purging is as important
>> as a good UI, but anyway, surely 'after we've purged the word
>> "package"' is the *worst* possible time to go tinkering with other
>> terms in the UI - since it's then too late to purge them from the code
>> and docs at the same time.
>
> It's really hard to purge a word like group or package from CKAN
> completely (the word group appears in the ckan code tens of thousands of
> times). It'd be a really big change that would take ages and be really
> disruptive to other work on the code. Changing multiple words at the
> same time would be even worse.
>
> So what you'd probably end up with is what we have with package/dataset:
> the word package may not appear in the web UI anymore, but as soon as
> the user hits the command-line interface, config file, API, writing
> extensions or themes, or working on the source code, they come across it.
>
> I think it's quite messy to have this with one major feature, having it
> with two or three would be really messy. Imagine having to always
> remember (and explain to new CKAN developers) that datasets are also
> called packages, themes are also called groups, and publishers are also
> called organizations.
>
> I agree they names are bad but the cost of changing them now is high.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:38:40 +0000
> From: Mark Wainwright <mark.wainwright at okfn.org>
> To: ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> Subject: Re: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
> Message-ID:
>
> <CAJhtavY7ybzFz=tcUdkZ7yEpdGF66eTCRV1r7XjroyUgOf85EQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>> I think it's quite messy to have this with one major feature, having it
>> with two or three would be really messy. Imagine having to always
>> remember (and explain to new CKAN developers) that datasets are also
>> called packages, themes are also called groups, and publishers are also
>> called organizations.
>
> On the other hand, developers are few compared with users who only
> ever see the UI. I agree your argument has weight, but against it is
> the point about translations. At the moment the opaque words 'Groups'
> and 'Organisations' are faithfully but uselessly translated into 50
> odd languages. The advantage of using a good word is that any instance
> that keeps it is accessible in a large number of languages.
>
> One possibility, which I referred to semi-facetiously above but is
> perhaps not so silly, is to allow a few fixed possibilities as config
> options, depending how you're using CKAN: [Group | Theme | Category]
> and [Organization | Publisher | Department].
>
> Mark
>
> --
> Business development and user engagement manager
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> Empowering through Open Knowledge
> http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  http://ckan.org  |  @CKANproject
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-discuss mailing list
> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/optionss/ckan-discuss
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of ckan-discuss Digest, Vol 47, Issue 7
> *******************************************
>
> ________________________________
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email
> Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is
> confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use,
> disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by
> reply email and then delete the emails.
> The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New
> Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Business development and user engagement manager
The Open Knowledge Foundation
Empowering through Open Knowledge
http://okfn.org/  |  @okfn  |  http://ckan.org  |  @CKANproject

• Previous message: [ckan-discuss] Groups -> themes?
• Next message: [ckan-discuss] Fwd: [datahub-discuss] Update of CKANClient-J
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]