30 Jul
2013
30 Jul
'13
6:15 p.m.
On Jul 30, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com> 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.
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> wrote:
>
> On Jul 30, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu(a)xwiki.com> 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! ;)
>
> 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