[OSGeo-Edu] Our proposed educational content andmanagement standard!

[Landon Blake]

Ned wrote: Landon and others - It would be better to think of this as a
proposal to use an open specification/format - DocBook rather than a
specific set of software tools.

Roger that.

Ned wrote: There are open source and proprietary tools to write and
process DocBook documents. The choice of which tool you use is up to
individuals.

As long as there is an inexpensive (preferably FOSS), easy-to-use, and
preferably cross-platform tool available. I'm not saying everyone has to
use this, but the availability of such a tool for authors should be
available.

Ned wrote: " Scribus is awful, in my mind, for writing 
documentation or tutorials. I tried it and it was painful."

I agree. Scribus isn't for writing, it is for layout. I do all my
writing in OpenOffice, and then move the text content to Scribus for
layout. We may not need to do this for the majority of the educational
content, but I don't think we should dismiss it entirely.

As an example, I'd really love to see a PDF version of the Free GIS Book
at some point in the future, and even a hard copy version of the book
that could be purchased from Lulu or something similar. I don't think
you'll find a FOSS tool that will beat Scribus for something like
textbook layout.

I think it is important to avoid making a specification for
documentation to great an obstacle for new authors. As an example, I had
to learn some LaTex to work on the OSGeo journal. This wasn't a great
challenge, but I'm guessing some authors would decide it wasn't worth
the hassle to contribute.

In the end, the lowest bar for entry would be plain text files. :]

If we do use Docbook as a suggested specification for educational
content, it should be accompanied by plenty of helpful assistance for
authors that are unfamiliar with it. We should also definitely use the
same standard for the education content as we do with the journal. If we
do not we may end up with a system where OSGeo authors are having to
learn and work with two (2) different OSGeo documentation management
systems, and that would stink.

I hope I'm not being a real pain in the rear-end. As I mentioned before,
I will work within whatever system the group establishes, but I think
these are important things to think about.

Landon

-----Original Message-----
From: Ned Horning [mailto:nedh at lightlink.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 8:46 AM
To: Landon Blake
Cc: cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu; smailiidaho at yahoo.com; OSGeo-edu
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Edu] Our proposed educational content andmanagement
standard!

Landon Blake wrote:
> I had some of the same concerns that Moritz had.
>
> Most importantly, I agree with this statement about using an open
source
> XML-Editor. It seems a little hypocritical to have OSGeo using
> "non-free" software to produce documentation unless this is absolutely
> necessary.
>   
Landon and others - It would be better to think of this as a proposal to

use an open specification/format - DocBook rather than a specific set of

software tools. There are open source and proprietary tools to write and

process DocBook documents. The choice of which tool you use is up to 
individuals.
> I also find that this type of documentation tool chain works great for
> "text based" content, but are not ideal for production of professional
> publications for which slightly more complicated layouts are required.

>
>   
Exactly. DocBook is not designed to work with complicated layouts. It is

geared for writing technical documents. There are different types of 
software tools (word processors, structured writing, layout...) for 
different types of documents. I think DocBook would also work well for 
Journal articles. Scribus is awful, in my mind, for writing 
documentation or tutorials. I tried it and it was painful.

> I think Scribus is a great FOSS tool for publications that require a
> little more flexibility in the layout.
>
> Having said that, I will gladly follow whatever standard the group
comes
> up with, and if that means using Docbook and a non-free XML editor, so
> be it. 
>
> It would be nice if we could come up with a standard that worked for
the
> OSGeo Journal and the Education material, since I hope to continue
> contributing to both over the next couple of years.
>
> I think the idea about metadata is a great one! Is there a metadata
> standard for educational or technical material?
>
> Landon
>
> P.S. - I've briefly looked at Docbook as a documentation format in the
> past, but I haven't used it. Please keep that in mind when considering
> my comments.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: edu_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:edu_discuss-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Moritz
Lennert
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 1:10 AM
> To: cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu
> Cc: nedh at lightlink.com; smailiidaho at yahoo.com; OSGeo-edu
> Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Edu] Our proposed educational content
andmanagement
> standard!
>
> Hello,
>
> First of all thanks for all the work !
>
> However, I have a fundamental question: why does OSGeo have to impose 
> such a standard ? Almost all types of formats are searchable nowadays 
> and we can create a metadata base which contains all the relevant 
> information, but why does all content have to be in this format ?
>
> I think we all have varying constraints due to local situations which 
> means that we won't always be able to use docbook, but as long as the 
> content is available in some source form, this allows people to reuse 
> it. In my eyes OSGeo should concentrate on a good collection of 
> meta-data on available contents.
>
> The exact toolchain to use for collaborative works is probably best 
> decided project by project.
>
> On 18/01/08 18:43, cschweik at pubpol.umass.edu wrote:
>   
>> 1) Comments or a general vote of OK so that we can implement; and
>>     
>
> Ok for docbook (or latex for that matter, no religion on that - in my
> experience they are equivalent for most uses).
>
> However, I don't like the idea of OSGeo actively promoting a toolchain
> which contains non-free software, e.g. XMLMind - the fact that you
> mention it several times suggests that you have not found a satisfying
> free alternative. From their license text, it is not clear to me what 
> would happen if one of us used the contents created with XMLMind for a

> commercial consultancy. So, I suggest that if we go down the route you

> suggest, we promote free software in all steps.
>
> I don't have any experience with specific xml-editors (have always
used
> simple text editors), but some existing related free projects (besides
> the obvious candidates emacs and vi or kate and gedit) are (in no
> particular order):
>
> http://www.conglomerate.org/
> http://www.stacken.kth.se/project/pptout/
> http://www.freespiders.org/projects/gmlview/
> http://kxmleditor.sourceforge.net/
>
>
>   
>> 2) A commitment from some who have edu material or are writing edu
>>     
> material to
>   
>> follow this standard so we build a searchable database of
>> standardized educational content over the next 6 months.
>>     
>
> Again, I don't think that a searchable database really depends on the 
> format of the material. As I wrote a while ago, for me the
collaborative
>
> creation of content and the collection and indexation of material are 
> two different issues and should be approached as such.
>
> For my project (french-language e-learning platform for free gis 
> software in the context of a 4-month training), I will use what is
best 
> for the project. If docbook is a reasonable choice amongst others for 
> the material, I can commit to choosing it over the other alternatives,

> but if not, I won't.
>
> Moritz
> _______________________________________________
> Edu_discuss mailing list
> Edu_discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/edu_discuss
>
>
> Warning:
> Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against
defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please
notify the sender immediately.
>
>
>   



Warning:
Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately.