On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 17:52 +0300, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: > Hello everyone, > > > This is a draft of the Quick Start part of a tutorial I'm writing for a > data definition language I made. > > https://gitorious.org/peer-review/peer-review/trees/master > > > The language is currently called Idan. It can be used by anyone, > including non-programmers, to define data models (classes, properties, > objects) and then define data accordingly, all in simple syntax and > plain text. > > Once the language is ready I'll write the software for it, which can > read files and manipulate them. > > *** Motivation: *** > > Data models are usually written by the programmer, and a user can't > change them. If you want to have a customized system for outlining and > todo-list or task dependency hierarchies, either you use plain text or > Emacs org-mode. > > Org-mode is great, but it means you need to use Emacs key combinations. > > TaskJuggler language exists too, but it's aimed at somewhat technical > people who need the tool for serious usage. > > Idan is simple enough for anyone to use, with Python-like syntax and > minimal clutter, and the software will allow connection to RDF, and all > kinds of reports and queries, thus allowing to have all the GUI you > want, combined with the ability to alter the model by hand and see > immediate results. > > Text formats for task lists already exist, but Idan aims to be a > general-purpose model definition language, and has features for > out-of-the-box export to databases and external languages such as RDF. > >
Sorry for sounding negative - I've never used org-mode or TaskJuggler and I don't know how to use them. My 'complains' are probably simply unfamiliarity with this class of tools. Unfortunately I fail to see what problems you are trying to solve. Could you provide a scenario where it would solve some problem (what user would be doing from POV of user)? Possibly 2 to show the generality of approach? > > > If you have a few minutes to go over this file and tell me what you > think, I'll be thankful. It's s short quick-start tutorial. A primer. > > https://gitorious.org/peer-review/peer-review/trees/master > > Sorry for complaining but usually it is much better idea to put the source code then binary file in repository. In that way not only you can get contributions but also vcs are handling text-based formats much better then binaries. To the format: - Do you and if you do how are you trying to internalisation? Should user use Task even if (s)he does not know the English? Or maybe the idan files are paired with gettex translation? - Possibly a small thing but I would change <> to * or many prefix (for example "many Topic topic" instead of "Topic<> topic") Best regards > > Thanks in advance, > > Anatoly > > > > On ג', 2013-06-18 at 05:32 +0300, Luc Pionchon wrote: > > On 17 June 2013 09:43, אנטולי קרסנר <tomback...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey Luc and list, > > > > > > I've been planning and designing a language for data modeling and > > > description, somewhat based on concepts borrowed from Python (which I > > > learned in the process). > > > > > > I'm now writing a tutorial, and it looks quite simple and > > > straight-forward, and the language is very simple. Very soon I'll finish > > > the tutorial and I'd like to have it reviewed and hear comments and > > > advice. Is anyone interested? > > > > if you publish it somewhere, I'll have a look > > > > > > > > > > With a polished language I'll be able to proceed and write a parser and > > > command-line tools, which can serve (with their underlying library) as a > > > base for larger systems and GUI app integration (Gnote, GTG, etc.) > > > > > > regards, > > > Anatoly > > > > > > > > > On ד', 2013-05-29 at 21:10 +0300, Luc Pionchon wrote: > > >> Hi Anatoly, > > >> > > >> if you really get such simple enough language, you certainly will get > > >> some users. > > >> > > >> I see you are planning for more usages, though about TODO apps, did > > >> you see todotxt [1] which is basically a text based todo/GTD. They > > >> have a relatively simple language [2]. Is it similar to what you are > > >> thinking about? > > >> > > >> [1] http://todotxt.com/ > > >> [2] https://github.com/ginatrapani/todo.txt-cli/wiki/The-Todo.txt-Format > > >> > > >> I think you should go ahead and start to write examples, so people > > >> could grasp it, and you will also get a better view of the > > >> feasibility. > > >> > > >> Don't care much about "user testing", it's up-side down business > > >> thinking. Do something useful, and you'll get some users. > > >> > > >> go ahead! > > >> In any case that is certainly a good learning experience > > >> > > >> On 29 May 2013 18:02, אנטולי קרסנר <tomback...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Hello everyone, > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > I'm an individual not working on any Gnome module. I'll try not to get > > >> > into much detail (likely to fail on this one), but here's the idea I > > >> > have: > > >> > > > >> > After reading about existing GTD software tools I made the following > > >> > conclusions: > > >> > > > >> > * There are GUI tools > > >> > * There are plain-text solutions > > >> > * There are pen-and-paper solutions > > >> > * There are text-based applications > > >> > > > >> > GUI tools have lots of features and visual widgets, but they somehow > > >> > fail to satisfy most people. At the same time, plain text seems to > > >> > become more and more popular. After reading I made these conclusions: > > >> > > > >> > * Each person has her own way of thinking, her own way of how the brain > > >> > works. Therefore, each person should have a personally tailored > > >> > solution > > >> > > > >> > * GUI tools, and GTD tools in general, tend to make the false > > >> > assumption > > >> > of "everyone is like me" and "one size fits all", which is why most > > >> > tools fail to become widely popular. > > >> > > > >> > * Emacs Org-Mode is quite successful as a GTD tool, thanks to its > > >> > flexibility and extensibility, but lacks an intuitive interface, which > > >> > limits its adoption despite the success of Org-Mode > > >> > > > >> > * A next-generation tool should have the extensibility of a plain-text > > >> > system, and the convenience, ease-of-use and efficiency of a visual > > >> > tool > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Therefore, I decided to create a language for definition of properties > > >> > and classes, intended for be used for describing tasks, timelines, > > >> > projects, etc. This language is easy enough for non-programmers to use, > > >> > and yet is expressive enough for practical use. It borrows concepts > > >> > from > > >> > RDF, OWL and scripting languages. > > >> > > > >> > On top of this language there will be a set of text-based tools > > >> > allowing > > >> > easy manipulation of the text. It means users can edit the files in > > >> > plain text, but also have convenient tools and utilities for easier > > >> > processing and visualization, similar to Org-Mode. > > >> > > > >> > On top of that there may be task/project-related definitions, a > > >> > specialized text editor and/or Gedit plugins, and a flexible GUI app > > >> > which replaces the "one for all" concept with a "personally tailored to > > >> > a user's mental model" concept, which seems to work very successfully > > >> > with plain text and Emacs Org-Mode. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Existing free software I found: > > >> > > > >> > - Gedit (Gnome's plain text editor, extensible with plugins) > > >> > - Emacs Org-Mode > > >> > > > >> > That's all. All other tools, including all GTD and To-do apps for > > >> > Gnome/GNU, are either scripts intended for power users, or have a > > >> > limited scope which is not flexible enough to customize. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > An existing GUI app for GTD called Getting Things Gnome (GTG) has great > > >> > potential, but I'd like to back it up using a flexible text-based > > >> > approach which is then used to describe semantic entities and attach > > >> > them to program objects. This would supply both the flexibility of > > >> > text, > > >> > the convenience of GUI and automatic translation to RDF, which means > > >> > instant Semantic Desktop integration (using Tracker and Zeitgeist). > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > *** The Question *** > > >> > > > >> > My question is, what do you think? Does this idea sound useful? To me > > >> > personally, it seems to fill the gap between plain text (which has no > > >> > visualization and productivity utilities) and convenient GUI (which > > >> > current is mostly not flexible enough). > > >> > > > >> > NOTE: Non-free software already exists, which uses plain text as a > > >> > backend, such as Taskpaper: > > >> > http://www.hogbaysoftware.com/products/taskpaper > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > regards, > > >> > Anatoly > > >> > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > desktop-devel-list mailing list > > >> > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > > >> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
