John F. Sowa wrote:
> Farrukh, Fabian, and Barry,
>
> There are many different models that we should consider, but it's
> not likely that any single model could be adopted as is. (01)
+1 I never intended to imply that. What I said is to study existing
wikpedia model as a starting point. (02)
> For
> example, Wikipedia has strong guidelines, but they permit anybody
> to modify any article. (03)
I think we should first define roles (actors) and actions and finally
describe a set of policies as to which roles are allowed to perform
what actions under what circumstances. (04)
For example, I can see the following roles. Note indentation implies
specialization or sub-classing. (05)
* Guest - Unregistered User who has readonly priviliges
* Registered User - Has WRITE privileges within their own node. What
they author is a Submitted state but not an Approved state
o Reviewer - May review and mark as "Approved" any content in
their own node
o LeadReviewer - A designated leader of all reviewers who
serves to arbitrate any conflicts. She is also a Reviewer in
root OOR
o Administrator - Has superuser priviliges within their own
node. May modify or delete any content in their own node.
Responsible for uploading approved content to root OOR node (06)
> Sourceforge has looser controls, but only
> (07)
SourceForge (SF) is more like the root OOR while a SourceForge project
is like a sub-OOR.
Note that SourceForge policies for most part simply decide whether a
project should be approved for SourceForge or not.
Once a project is approved it is largely able to do just about anything
within some limited boundaries such as resource
utilization etc. (08)
> the steward of a resource has the right to modify its web site.
>
> A comparative study of the pros and cons would be important.
> (09)
For the root OOR I see similarities with SF in that root OOR governing
board would decide which sub-communities will be accepted.
However, I also see similarities with Wikipedia that once accepted,
registered users from a community may upload whatever they see fit
through their Administrator. Whether that content gets approved or not
is upto the Reviewers of root OOR (of which the LeadReviewer of
sub-community is a member). Whether unapproved content is visible to
general public or not could be a policy decision. I favour allowing it
to be visible on demand (say through a UI switch). (010)
--
Regards,
Farrukh Najmi (011)
Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com (012)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2008/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2008
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (013)
|