Mel – Thanks for your translation which is great. I think I would say my phrasing of why a plug-in architecture is so important is not just improve flexibility but also to improve personal context. This is however a moot point and I think it will not change much in the outcome.

The advantageous thing I was talking about is just a method of tracking changes to many kinds of information through a single interface. It would include changes in things like image files, text files, other data files but also on a ‘meta’ level (information about information), different representations of content or different renders of output and then further more, on an information architecture level (how information corresponds with other information in the system) changes and developments of workflow are also relevant within the system. Another aspect of this system is that it is not just based on versioning but also interconnection and creates an interface for the formal control of linking between files to produce desired outcomes.

This solution is not really interesting to solve the specific problems mentioned in this article however I think it offers some tools that would greatly benefit collaborators and users in most systems. I am working on this system as part of a long term project and right now I call it File Tree. An example of an asset management system with similar ideas in mind is Shake, the compositing software from Apple Inc.

I am currently quite interested in getting some of my recent work developed to form an attention economy funded collaboration network. At this point I am just about to graduate from Uni so I have not put much time into seeking development yet.

I think the backbone of this kind of system really needs to be a plugin based architecture

“Any software system that helps people document engineering projects and appropriate technology needs to be really modular, made of a lot of customizable little parts (plugins) that individuals can put together to build their own solutions (as opposed to a gigantic one-size-fits-all application).”

as the advantages of a community application centric approach are incredible.

“If appropriate technologists are able to customize their own software solutions from premade plugin “building blocks,” they’re more likely to get invested in and enthusiastic about the software, contribute to it, use it more, help each other work with it, form a community around the software (and use it to help their own communities form).”

However I also think the suggestion that a Wiki is a good base model is not universally accurate. I found that a simple information standard was a good place to start but that using an unrobust information standard, from a communications point of view, would probably cause serious latency issues.

“Wikis may not be the right place to start, though. When you’re trying to communicate technical information, you need to have some agreed-upon format and structure (a “simple information standard”) to your communications. If you don’t have some preset structure and just let people write anything anywhere in any format (as on a wiki), it takes a really long time for people to get their point across (“serious latency issues”).”

I think wiki is in general the definition of a well connected but unrobustly managed system. My attempts to use similar services for this kind of system did not work well for various reasons, including the lack of a strong information handling framework. At this point I have found an alternative which seems advantageous.

“Wikis make it very easy to connect bits of information to each other (by making links), but they’re hard to manage and restructure and clean-up when the information starts getting messy. I think I’ve found a better way.”

(End translation, start comment)

Also, there’s no reason that additional structure can’t be imposed using wiki software as a base. Wikis start out with a lack of structural definition precisely because the users are supposed to add their own structural restrictions – but you get to choose exactly which freedoms to remove. (This is often done via plugins, actually.)

There’s no reason why you can’t make some or all of your pages pass through a validation of some additional syntax/structure you’ve set, no reason why you can’t specify (in rules or in code to check those rules) that pages should be titled just so, linked in this location, and so forth.

That having been said: Mark, I echo Chris on being curious about the “alternative which seems advantageous” you mentioned. Mind telling us more about it? As an engineer myself, I’m always on the lookout for better tools.

Unfortunately I couldn’t understand a lot of what you wrote after “not universally accurate.” Sent the link to some more software savvy colleagues for comment.

This is the project I have been working on for the last year or so. It is really nice to hear other people thinking about it.

I will not go into details of the solution I have been working on here but I will say that when I first approached this problem I was hoping to solve the issue of people in isolated conditions where it is dificult to take advantage of ones potential. I considered one instance of this being people like design students and young designers who are new to the market. I think there is a lot of skill that is not used and a lot of human assets which could be empowered by good implementation of such a system.

I strongly agree with Chris’s geeky friend and I think the backbone of this kind of system really needs to be a plugin based architecture as the advantages of a community application centric approach are incredible. However I also think the suggestion that a Wiki is a good base model is not universally accurate. I found that a simple information standard was a good place to start but that using an unrobust information standard, from a communications point of view, would probably cause serious latency issues. I think wiki is in general the definition of a well connected but unrobustly managed system. My attempts to use similar services for this kind of system did not work well for various reasons, including the lack of a strong information handling framework. At this point I have found an alternative which seems advantageous.

And, as a geeky friend responded when I send them this link: “Yeah, that’s why mankind invented plugins. ;-)”