[LOPSA-Standards-Project] project summary?

[Doug Hughes]

Ross West wrote:
> Hi Doug,
> 
> 
>>>In doing some more thinking on this, I'm wonder on the idea of
>>>creating two main content types.  One being the raw data node in which
>>>the actual standard (RFC/etc) is listed with comments and tags (as you
>>>proposed earlier).
>>>
>>>The second would be a subject entry - closely (directly?) aligned to
>>>the taxonomy category. Thereby providing some kind of central topical
>>>description of the linked data nodes. Ie: ethernet cabling to
>>>TIA/EIA-568-B.
> 
> 
> DH> I think I'll have to see what you mean in action on this one. I'm having
> DH> a little trouble visualizing it.
> 
> Basically what I'm thinking of is having a node type for an actual
> standard - using your original breakout idea gives for a good example
> of representing the standard on it's own...
> 
> Name: RFC1305
> Description: Network Time Protocol (Version 3)
> Author: David L. Mills
> Date: March 1992
> Supercedes: RFC-1119, RFC-1059, RFC-958
> Body: IETF
> Keywords: NTP, peer, dispersion, UDP, stratum, time
> Source: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1305.txt?number=1305
> Summary: "This document describes the Network Time Protocol (NTP), 
> specifies its
> formal structure and summarizes information useful for its
> implementation. NTP provides the mechanisms to synchronize time and
> coordinate time distribution in a large, diverse internet operating at
> rates from mundane to lightwave. It uses a returnable-time design in
> which a distributed subnet of time servers operating in a self-
> organizing, hierarchical-master-slave configuration synchronizes local
> clocks within the subnet and to national time standards via wire or
> radio. The servers can also redistribute reference time via local
> routing algorithms and time daemons." - RFC1305 abstract
> 
> ... and then having a second node type (the subject one) which
> provides more details on the basic subject - something like:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Time_Protocol which would give a
> better description of things, also provides a better listing of all
> the standards involved with dealing with NTP.
> 
I'm not suggesting we do this, but, what about integrating that more 
detail into the original node and making them editable by all members?

> 
>>>And to expand on that thought - (since it seems you know the drupal
>>>system much better than myself) - would there be a module that tracks
>>>the child -> parent (and vice versa) looking for non-existent nodes to
>>>make a list of things that need to be filled in?  The reason would be
>>>to allow someone to add a node of data, link to another (non-existant)
>>>node to be filled later (potentially by someone else).
>>>
> 
> DH> not that I can think of.. but there are a lot of modules that I haven't
> DH> looked at.
> 
> Okay, I'll see what I can find.  Making it easy for people to just to
> a small quick thing would be a good thing.  Lopsa can't afford to have
> someone on staff doing data entry.  :)
> 
oh no. definitely should be editable by members and should be able to 
add and link things easily. Primary functionality.

> DH> there is also a 'modified' date inherent to all objects (node), though
> DH> that isn't quite the same thing. I think a mock-up will help to provide
> DH> clarity by example.
> 
> Yes.  It's just one of those tags that "down the road" becomes a very
> nice thing to have.  It's not so important a feature currently.
> 

We need to figure out some categories (hierarchy) to arrange content in. 
I started a page http://lopsa.org/ToolsAndStandardsCategories.

(then, sorting things by categories and automatically creating 
hierarchical menus to brows content becomes automatic and dynamic)