Re: [xwiki-devs] How to call a workspace? (Was: [VOTE] Integrate Workspaces by default in XWiki's default XAR)

2013/7/31 Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> Is it really ? What drew me into XWiki at (almost) the very beginning, was that killer-feature of exposing an XClass model right into wiki pages, and ability to create applications through scripting and structured data without any server-side coding or custom database schema creation ... To me it's still the core originality of XWiki compared to others, and that's the 'X'. I don't think any other wiki does that, but many of them propose various solutions to organize content, whatever the name. Components are nice (to build additional/structured/stable/maintanable/documented APIs) but it's not original at all, as Extensions (sometimes called "plugin" elsewhere, as in old xwiki system). Multi-tenancy is also a killer feature in its kind, but I'm not sure it's very exposed (so, here, going in the same direction as you, naming these "wiki" or better "sub-wiki" versus "workspace" may be a way to promote this, but "workgroup" does not add any information more than "workspace" when it comes to multi-tenancy), nor does it interest the same category of people.

"workgroup" or "group" makes me think about a team and its members, but not at a subwiki at all. Typically, the sentence may be "A workgroup uses a dedicated [workspace|wiki|sub-wiki] [to work collaboratively|to share] on a specific subject". I think the term "(work)group" is even more generic (and less meaningful) than workspace can be ... The confusion between "space" and "workspace" may even be a good thing, as even you consider both can fulfill almost same needs when nested spaces will be implemented (by the way, why having 2 different ways to do almost exactly the same thing, and how could this make xwiki easier for end users, while their main issue to add content to a wiki is that they are lost understanding what is correct location to put the information ...). Anyway I think "sub-wiki" is far better and clearer than "wiki" even if longer.

> Thanks > -Vincent > > On Jul 31, 2013, at 10:57 AM, Silvia Rusu &lt;silvia.rusu(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Without wanting to add more fire to the debate I'd like to make a few >> comments regarding the naming issue. Edi said above "For me, the >> "wiki" is the entire environment (main wiki + all its subwikis), as a >> whole, by definition." I was remembered of an old thread I read while >> googling "XWiki Workspaces" where a potential TWiki user was comparing >> options and he only used the term wiki in its singular form ( >> http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Support/SID-00140 ). I agree that users >> tend to think of the whole environment as "the wiki". If I wasn't part >> of the XWiki community I'd probably be sharing their opinion :) >> >> I think the naming depends a lot on the message we are trying to >> transmit. Do we want the emphasis to be on the content, or are we >> looking to underline the collaboration aspect more? If we are trying >> to say XWiki should be used for: >> * Knowledge building > the term "wiki" is appropriate >> * Collaboration > "workspaces" sounds better IMO >> >> An argument in favor of workspaces would be avoiding the intimidation >> & fear factor: most users associate wikis with Wikipedia. Let's say >> I'm an HR manager and I need a place where I can store CVs, employee >> information and where I can discuss things with the HR team. Do I need >> Wikipedia to achieve this? Sounds a bit too much. Also I thought I >> already was on a wiki. Should I create a wiki in a wiki? Does that >> exist ("inception")? This sounds terribly complicated. What if I mess >> up the wiki?! Maybe I'll get a sys admin to help. Or maybe I'll just >> create a space somewhere since I don't want to mess up the wiki. Email >> and Excel I guess are not that bad in the end either. >> >> In conclusion I understand the arguments of both parties which makes >> it very hard to choose one of the names. In the end if I have to >> choose I prefer the notion of workspace, since to me this suggests a >> tool that's easy to use, that helps one get organized, but most of all >> collaborate more efficiently. I'm not -1 for wiki, I just like the >> workspace name better. >> >> Silvia >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Jeremie BOUSQUET >> &lt;jeremie.bousquet(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> >>> 2013/7/31 Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.com&gt; >>> >>>> On 07/30/2013 05:32 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>> Hi Sergiu, >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.org&gt; > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Vincent, stop thinking so technical! You're describing the technical >>>>>> implementation of the current "workspace" feature, not the user > friendly >>>>>> name that users can understand. >>>>> >>>>> <joking> >>>>> ok let's stop the xwiki project then! Because it contains the word >>>> "wiki" which our users don't understand…. I don't even understand how > we >>>> get users since obviously they can't understand what xwiki is about… ;) >>>> Let's call it "stuff" which is a word that everyone understands surely… >>>>> </joking> >>>> >>>> Are you sure you want to go this way? >>>> >>>> > http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+mediawiki%2C+confluence >>>> >>>> XWiki is almost unknown. XWiki doesn't get the volume of users that a >>>> mature and popular project usually gets. We've been struggling to > market >>>> it as an application wiki, yet few users use it that way. How many high >>>> quality third party applications do we have in our repository? >>>> >>>> I've seen more questions about migrating from Mediawiki than from >>>> Confluence, which is our direct competitor. And Confluence is only >>>> getting more popular. >>>> >>>> The peak of Mediawiki popularity was also the peak of interest in >>>> plaintext wikis (Gartner's peak of inflated expectations). And >>>> unfortunately the decrease in popularity in Mediawiki is also reflected >>>> in the decrease in popularity in XWiki: >>>> http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki (and twiki, dokuwiki, >>>> moinmoin, pmwiki, jspwiki). >>>> >>>> Confluence seems to be the winner on the Gartner Hype Cycle. >>>> >>>> We haven't even been able to overcome our precursor, TWiki, and I've >>>> considered TWiki almost dead for several years: >>>> http://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=xwiki%2C+twiki >>>> >>>> So don't wonder how we even get users, because we almost don't. >>>> >>>> >>>> And I didn't say that users don't understand what "wiki" means, just >>>> that they misunderstand what XWiki is and what a wiki is in XWiki, >>>> because they already know what a wiki is in the traditional way. It's >>>> like calling a teleportation device a TCar because it gets you from one >>>> place to another, just like a car, but then users will expect all the >>>> things they have in a car. There's a reason why different products get >>>> different names, instead of just extending the base name: reusing the >>>> old name with a prefix causes confusion. >>>> >>>> So +1 for choosing something better than "XWiki" as the name of the >>>> product, this one hasn't been lucky so far. >>>> >>>>>> No matter how much more accurate the term "wiki" is to what's > happening >>>>>> inside, it means less than nothing to our target users. Less, because >>>>>> it's misleading instead of helpful. >>>>>> >>>>>> So yes, on the inside we have __entities__ named documents, spaces > and >>>>>> wikis, and this isn't about changing those. It's about adding names > that >>>>>> end users can understand to the __concepts__ that those entities >>>>>> represent. >>>>> >>>>> <joking> >>>>> Yeah, let's rename "document" by "book page", "space" by "book" and >>>> "wiki" by "shelf". I"m sure users will understand better! >>>>> </joking> >>>> >>>> Did I even mention "renaming"? I explicitly said that this isn't about >>>> changing our entity names, but about labeling for users. It's a >>>> marketing strategy. >>>> >>>> But yes, even "document" and "space" have been occasionally misleading. >>>> >>>>>> It is a wiki, but it lets users collaborate. Our users do >>>>>> their jobs in such a wiki, and for __our users__ that means much more >>>>>> than what "wiki" means to them. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3Awiki >>>>> >>>>> You just proved that the wiki word is exactly the right word… :) >>>> >>>> What exactly do you see? I see: >>>> >>>> "A Web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing >>>> any user to add and edit content" >>>> >>>> So if this is indeed the correct term, adding a new subwiki, is... >>>> "creating a new website"? Do you even know what a "website" means for >>>> the average user? Or "content"? >>>> >>>>>> Remember the XWiki (SAS) mottos: work better together, the best way > to >>>>>> organize information, free your knowledge... Users do their work >>>>>> collaboratively, they don't just write pages in a wiki. They write > in a >>>>>> forum, write review, write press releases, vote, plan, review job >>>>>> candidates, take meeting notes, draw UML diagrams, etc. This is why >>>>>> "wiki" is WRONG for __end users__. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that this is not a technical decision, but a > marketing/usability >>>>>> one, so it would be better to see what someone from marketing thinks. >>>>> >>>>> I definitely don't agree, sorry… We're building a collaborative > solution >>>> based on a wiki and as such I definitely don't agree to rename the base >>>> concepts of a wiki: pages, spaces, wiki, etc. >>>> >>>> Again, when did I ever said that we should rename them? I just said > that >>>> it would be more intuitive for users to label a virtual wiki as a >>>> workspace. >>>> >>> >>> I must say I somehow share this vision ... From the very start, I never > had >>> the same perception about sub-wikis and workspaces, even though I knew > they >>> mostly shared same technicals (and fundamentally it's the same thing). >>> But in my mind (and it's totally irrationnal), "sub-wikis" are > associated >>> to wiki farms, something a bit huge, a bit difficult to put in place, >>> something to host thousands of isolated wikis, something I never really >>> envisaged to put in production for myself. >>> While workspaces is a light collaborative concept, that can be installed >>> from EM in a few clicks, that has a nice and easy UI, and that I started >>> playing with nearly from the start and that I've put in production to >>> manage distinct projects Mail Archives at my office with 5.1. >>> >>> Of course it might seem stupid, but I can't help but feeling that going >>> back to "wiki" (for naming those kind of subwikis) is like a step back. > My >>> users start to get used to seing that "Workspace directory" entry point. >>> And I don't want them to consider these as "wikis", because I don't want >>> them to edit anything (or add manually new pages) in these. Still, they > are >>> collaborative (thanks to ratings, comments, activity stream, page > sharing, >>> and thanks to its nature of mail archive). But I wouldn't want my users > to >>> imagine that it could be nice to add a Blog in this kind of workspace, > or >>> use any other wiki feature. >>> >>> For example, seems the concept of "Space" is taken for granted as basic >>> wiki feature, but maybe I didn't test much of them, but I never heard of >>> this "Space" concept in any other wiki. The fact that it's called a > "Space" >>> (and not a group, or a workspace, or a folder, or just anything) is a >>> choice done by XWiki from the start. IMHO, the choice to call a subwiki > a >>> "wiki" or a "workspace" is only your choice, and it should be more > based on >>> what you want XWiki to be than on what it currently is inside ... >>> >>> What I can only say on my side, is that I love my XWiki with my > workspaces >>> (and eagerly wait for flavours), and I somewhat don't care at all about > the >>> wiki farm concept ... >>> Maybe to explain better: >>> - a wiki farm is a set of distinct full-fledged wikis, like a cluster of >>> wikis, with a top-hat admin and container. The container itself has no > real >>> interest, apart from grouping things together and providing central >>> navigation >>> - the main wiki + workspaces is a full-fledged wiki, with specialized >>> collaborative places for particular topics, projects, tools, > documentation >>> creation ... The main wiki is not just an entry point, it is THE wiki, > THE >>> knowledge base, with some satelites graviting around this central > planet. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Remember that we're talking here about the base platform. Then there > are >>>> flavors and customizations done by our users which can be anything > specific >>>> for their project if they want to hide the wiki concepts… >>>>> >>>>> I think you're confusing applications based on xwiki concepts with > core >>>> concepts. A subwiki is a core concept in the same manner as a document > or a >>>> space. What we're doing now is making the notion of subwiki part of the >>>> core concepts as it should have been a long time ago (this is why btw > it's >>>> also in the new model). Again, on top of these core concepts you could >>>> create apps for specific uses cases. You could have a workspace app if > you >>>> want although with the core concepts it's not required ATM since it > doesn't >>>> add any additional feature... >>>> >>>> Rerepeating myself, this isn't about the workspace feature. This isn't >>>> about the workspace feature. This is about the XWiki vision, and the >>>> XWiki marketing strategy. Is XWiki just a wiki? Or is it much more than >>>> that, with collaborative applications as the focus instead of just > plain >>>> text. >>>> >>>> What is XWiki trying to be? How do we present it to our potential > users? >>>> As a wiki? Or as a platform empowering collaboration? An intranet >>>> environment, where employees can do their work better. >>>> >>>> Compared to first generation wikis, XWiki is like an atomic bomb next > to >>>> a hand grenade. Let's not market XWiki as a Bigger Grenade. >>>> >>>> >>>> And please, read more carefully what I'm actually saying. >>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>> PS: BTW you haven't proposed a good name so far IMO…. At least not one >>>> that is better for all use cases. Some might be better for a specific > usage >>>> of xwiki but not generally speaking. >>>>> >>>>>> On 07/30/2013 12:15 PM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Eduard Moraru &lt;enygma2002(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just my point of view on this point, since I keep seeing similar >>>> topics >>>>>>>> popping up once in a while... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For me, the "wiki" is the entire environment (main wiki + all its >>>>>>>> subwikis), as a whole, by definition. Since they are all connected, >>>> it is >>>>>>>> wrong to say that we are creating new wikis (subwikis) when, in > fact, >>>> we >>>>>>>> are just creating new "spaces"/"workspaces" (spaces where the user >>>>>>>> does/groups/catalogues his work). Also, this view is enforced by > our >>>> new >>>>>>>> direction towards virtual by default and of making subwikis part of >>>> XWiki's >>>>>>>> data model (including the new model). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the future you'll be able to either: >>>>>>> - create wikis, they are real wikis. >>>>>>> - create nested spaces >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you'll be able to choose the way you want to organize yourself by >>>> either creating a (sub)wiki or a (nested)space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The notion of "workspace" is not needed in either case: >>>>>>> - for (sub)wikis, it matches with the notion of a wiki and flavors >>>>>>> - for (nested)space, it matches with the notion of a space + space >>>> template (which I guess could also be implemented as a flavor in the > future) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since we are currently lacking the hierarchy feature of the the new >>>> model, >>>>>>>> and we are faking it technically (and maybe this is where the >>>> confusion >>>>>>>> comes from) by using new wikis(subwikis) in new databases, the term >>>>>>>> "workspace" would, IMO, remain the best candidate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't agree. The "workspace" feature was done ad-hoc outside of > the >>>> platform and as a consequence was thought as an add-on. Now, what we > are >>>> doing and preparing for the future is to have the notion of subwiki at > the >>>> core of XWiki. And this concept of workspace is no longer needed as >>>> something adhoc. It can be integrated in the platform. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is a workspace: >>>>>>> * it's a set of pages/applications >>>>>>> * using existing users >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those 2 items can be done without the need for any new > name/concept. A >>>> set of pages/applications is what we call a flavor. And the notion of > users >>>> already exists (what we need to work on, is to have a config feature so >>>> that a subwiki can have or not have local users). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we consider the fact >>>>>>>> that we want to make workspaces the default (as proven in > practice), >>>> we >>>>>>>> find that the "corner" cases are actually the term "wiki" (actually >>>>>>>> "subwiki"), which occur only in farm deployments where, indeed, a >>>> subwiki >>>>>>>> is a fully fledged and generally isolated "wiki" from the point of >>>> view of >>>>>>>> the owner and its users. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, in an enterprise environment, try explaining each time to the >>>>>>>> Accounting, Marketing, etc. departments that: >>>>>>>> - a "wiki" is "a set of pages that can be edited/modified by users >>>> with >>>>>>>> links between pages, using some syntax, etc."... >>>>>>>> - a "workspace" is "a/the space where you (do *your*) >>>> work/collaborate" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't understand. Why have the 2 concepts? The idea of option B is >>>> to have only 1 concept: that of (sub)wikis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 for "workspace" as first-class term being promoted to users >>>>>>>> +1 for "wiki" as technical term being mentioned in documentation to >>>> admins >>>>>>>> (specifically for farm deployments) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also, being an enterprise wiki, I`m not sure we want to be labelled >>>> as the >>>>>>>> company's "wiki" instead of the company's "collaboration tool" (or >>>> "tool >>>>>>>> used to get our work done"). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Eduard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P.S.: As a technical/background note, just not to be misunderstood, >>>> indeed, >>>>>>>> a workspace is implemented as just a wiki right now with additional >>>>>>>> restrictions to satisfy its usecase. However, this is only due to > our >>>>>>>> platform's limitations. Normally, a workspace should just be a > space >>>> where >>>>>>>> a user can install apps, create other sub-spaces, and collaborate > with >>>>>>>> others. The initial proposal (for the "Wiki 3.0" XWiki SAS research >>>>>>>> project) was to actually use spaces to implement workspaces, but >>>> since we >>>>>>>> could not install apps (among other things), we chose to use > subwikis >>>>>>>> instead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We still need the ability to "Add a new Wiki" in 5.2 so this doesn't >>>> change anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And if in the future we support nested spaces then users will also > be >>>> able to use them + space templates with flavors. >>>> >>> >>> I was also eager to check out this nested spaces feature. >>> But now that I've tasted the workspace/subwikis, I feel that this is > really >>> less "important". I even feel, it might bring much more complexity to >>> XWiki, than what it could solve or help doing. Is it really comparable, >>> defining a tree of spaces, and a subwiki/workspace ? In my own > (enterprise) >>> use-cases, I always felt that at least one additional level (above > spaces) >>> was missing, and I currently use workspaces also for that. But I feel >>> bringing many additional levels + subwikis, might make things even more >>> complex for end users and application writers ... But that's another > topic. >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So for me that makes it even more important to not introduce the >>>> notion of "workspaces" in 5.2 and to only have the notion of adding a >>>> (sub)wiki :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> -Vincent >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Vincent Massol < > vincent(a)massol.net&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu &lt;sergiu(a)xwiki.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 07/30/2013 08:28 AM, Vincent Massol wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Definitely +1 for B. I really think we need to drop the concept > of >>>>>>>>> workspaces and come back to the concept of wiki/subwiki. It's much >>>> simpler >>>>>>>>> for the user. What we call "workspace" can be seen as a >>>> configuration for a >>>>>>>>> wiki, i.e. the usage of global users only. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I disagree. For us XWiki veterans it's obvious that an XWiki wiki >>>> is an >>>>>>>>>> all-powerful collection of applications and pages that can do >>>> anything >>>>>>>>>> we want it to. But for users, a wiki is Wikipedia, where you can >>>> find >>>>>>>>>> documentation written by amateurs that's hasn't been proof-read > by a >>>>>>>>>> real professional. It takes months or years of using a wiki to > shift >>>>>>>>>> from the external viewer bad opinion to the internal collaborator >>>> good >>>>>>>>>> opinion of the term "wiki". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So "wiki" is a bad name for users. I think "workspace" is a much >>>> better >>>>>>>>>> name than "wiki", although it's far from perfect. First of all >>>> because >>>>>>>>>> it creates confusion between a "space" and a "workspace (wiki)". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, what better word describes a "collaboration space" than >>>> "workspace"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Some random ideas, most of them bad: >>>>>>>>>> - node >>>>>>>>>> - workgroup >>>>>>>>>> - community >>>>>>>>>> - rename space to directory and we can use space or workspace for >>>> the >>>>>>>>>> current "wiki" >>>>>>>>>> - virtual server >>>>>>>>>> - environment >>>>>>>>>> - sandbox >>>>>>>>>> - appspace >>>>>>>>>> - office >>>>>>>>>> - location >>>>>>>>>> - rack >>>>>>>>>> - stack >>>>>>>>>> - instance >>>>>>>>>> - room >>>>>>>>>> - workroom >>>>>>>>>> - desk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure this is needed. XWiki is all about the notion of > wiki… >>>> even >>>>>>>>> in its name. The generic name "wiki" seems a much better name to > me >>>> than >>>>>>>>> anything else: >>>>>>>>> * it's a set of pages that can be edited/modified by users with > links >>>>>>>>> between pages, using some syntax, etc. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think we need to change that. Any other name would be >>>> awkward IMO. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's not forget that some of the instances are customized so > much >>>> that >>>>>>>>>> users don't even know they're using a wiki, so just seeing the > word >>>>>>>>>> "wiki" might cause confusion: "Wiki? What wiki? I'm using our >>>> company's >>>>>>>>>> internal Foobars application!". So it would be a good idea to > make >>>> this >>>>>>>>>> term configurable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the instance is customized so much that it doesn't look like a >>>> wiki, >>>>>>>>> then whoever did this customization can easily also customize the >>>>>>>>> translation resources to pick whatever suit their needs! ;) >>>> >>> >>> It's not only about customization, even not customized at all, a subwiki >>> might not be used (at all, or partly) as a standard wiki because of its >>> flavour. XWiki is more than just a wiki. Subwikis are more than just >>> subwikis. Still, the "wiki" features are fundamental to XWiki (I believe >>> that), but I'm not sure it's (always/mandatorily) the case for subwikis >>> use-cases. >>> >>> Maybe that's only resistance to change ;-) >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For example, if the wiki is used as a projects wiki and they want > to >>>> have >>>>>>>>> one project = one wiki, they could rename "Wiki" to "Projects". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We'll never be able to use a specialized name by default so we > might >>>> as >>>>>>>>> well stick with "wiki" which is the best name for what it is… a > wiki >>>> ;-) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> -Vincent >>>>