On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Frank Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Bruce D'Arcus <[email protected]> wrote: > > First, thanks to those of you that attended the call. I've kind of been > > slammed this term. > > > > Second, can we step back a bit and talk high-level vision? So, for example > > ... > > > > Frank, from a user perspective, what sorts of scenarios would your proposal > > enable? > > Pre-flight vetting of submissions could be automated at the first > stage. The idea would be to provide something similar to Amazon > CreateSpace (but for freely distributed styles, of course): > > > https://www.createspace.com/Help/Index.jsp?cid=02n70000000DfLw&orgId=00D300000001Sh9 > > (Scroll down to the link "What are the book setup steps?")
For whatever reason, I can't get this page to work. > > Make it much easier for style editors to manage style additions and changes? > > So much so that it would open up style editing to a much wider range of > > users? > > The focus is on pruning and curating code in the repository, to reduce > the burden of maintaining what's there. A more compact code base and > an automated workflow for managing submissions would make it possible > to broaden the circle of maintainers. That seems to be a critical > objective at the moment. That's right. I'm just asking us at this point to be very explicit about the subjects (e.g. who) we are implicitly talking about. I think we basically need to build the technical and other foundations, step-by-step, so that Rintze and Sebastian can step away from this work and a) the quality of the styles remains very high, and b) the number of styles continues to grow. So we have a few different user roles: 1) "style editors" (people who, for whatever reason, take on a role of responsibility for maintaining the evolution of a particular style for a wider community of end users) 2) "style users" (aka "authors"? people who write academic manuscripts, using different software, and simply want the bib and citation formatting to "just work") 3) "developers" (people who might take the product of different projects and piece them together into something else)? > The proposal is just a thought, though, as a possible > research-fundraising-friendly path to automated submission pre-flight. I think it sounds good; I just didn't entirely understand it :-) It also occurs to me that there are different paths forward, which are not mutually exclusive: 1) something like Google SOC, which Sylvester mentioned, and has participated in; seems good for pretty focused, practical, projects (or subprojects) 2) Foundational grants like that which has funded things like Zotero, and the CSL editor. My point about "institutional home" probably applies more to #2, and is really just thinking about whose names go on the application, and how it gets managed. Sort of how Mendeley paired with Columbia. I, for example, could do it through my institution, but it's a bit awkward given my position within my institution (that I'm expected to get research grants for work that has nothing to do with technology). Bruce ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Precog is a next-generation analytics platform capable of advanced analytics on semi-structured data. The platform includes APIs for building apps and a phenomenal toolset for data science. Developers can use our toolset for easy data analysis & visualization. Get a free account! http://www2.precog.com/precogplatform/slashdotnewsletter _______________________________________________ xbiblio-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xbiblio-devel
