From: Krabina B. <kr...@kd...> - 2011-11-17 08:58:12
|
Hi, I think making the Collection extension & SMW work together is a very important functionality! Are there SMW developers that would be interested to have an eye on that? Are there implementors/customers who would be willing to provide funding? regards, Bernhard ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Hi John, > > It is not a SMW problem as such, rather a PDF Writer problem. > The Collection extension is alright though, doing IT'S job. > The problem is that PDF Writer only understands regular MW markup, > not all that comes with SMW. > And that is a real pity. > I understand, however, that PediaPress considers it is their main > duty to serve Wikipedia, and do it well. > I guess the "responsibles" for PDF Writer and Semantic MediaWiki must > cooperate in some sense to find a solution. > A sort of two-stage transformation should be considered: SMW -> MW -> > PDF (plus other formats like ODF and HTML for that matter). > > Regards, > Even Thorbergsen > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > Fra: John McClure [mailto:jmc...@hy...] > Sendt: 16. november 2011 19:34 > Til: Thorbergsen, Even > Kopi: sem...@li... > Emne: RE: PDF documents from SMW pages > > Hi Even, > Would you know why the Collection extension does not execute the SMW > {{#ask:}} parser function? Does it not execute all parser functions > on a page? I'm really confused by this one, and I do have tentative > plans to use the Collections extension. Is the Collections extension > poorly designed? > Your note implies it's an SMW problem, not a Collections problem. > Regards, > John > > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:06:34 +0100 > From: "Thorbergsen, Even" <eve...@br...> > Subject: [Semediawiki-user] PDF documents from SMW pages > To: "sem...@li..." > <sem...@li...> > Message-ID: > <11010CFD2DE5314BB7CC2F304B9C35B710C026F1@EXCHANGE2007.brreg.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi all, > > Does anyone know if it is or soon will be possible to generate PDF > documents directly from a page or a set of pages containing SMW-type > queries? > > I have for a while used the Collection extension in combination with > the PDF Writer extension for creating wiki-based PDF documents. > However, with an increasing amount of content being generated by SMW > queries, these extensions tends to be less valuable. > > Regards, > Even Thorbergsen > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > |
From: Yaron K. <ya...@wi...> - 2011-11-17 14:22:23
|
Hi, To clarify - I'm pretty sure the Collection extension doesn't handle parser functions of any kind; so it's not just #ask but every other function as well. Thus, it's not really an SMW issue but a general problem with Collection. (Though to be fair, I think it also can't display the "[[a::b]]" syntax, so there's also an SMW issue there.) The last I heard, the PediaPress people were planning to work on the problem - but that was something like two years ago, so I don't know what, if anything, has happened. -Yaron On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Krabina Bernhard <kr...@kd...> wrote: > Hi, > > I think making the Collection extension & SMW work together is a very > important functionality! > > Are there SMW developers that would be interested to have an eye on that? > > Are there implementors/customers who would be willing to provide funding? > > regards, > Bernhard > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > > Hi John, > > > > It is not a SMW problem as such, rather a PDF Writer problem. > > The Collection extension is alright though, doing IT'S job. > > The problem is that PDF Writer only understands regular MW markup, > > not all that comes with SMW. > > And that is a real pity. > > I understand, however, that PediaPress considers it is their main > > duty to serve Wikipedia, and do it well. > > I guess the "responsibles" for PDF Writer and Semantic MediaWiki must > > cooperate in some sense to find a solution. > > A sort of two-stage transformation should be considered: SMW -> MW -> > > PDF (plus other formats like ODF and HTML for that matter). > > > > Regards, > > Even Thorbergsen > > > > -----Opprinnelig melding----- > > Fra: John McClure [mailto:jmc...@hy...] > > Sendt: 16. november 2011 19:34 > > Til: Thorbergsen, Even > > Kopi: sem...@li... > > Emne: RE: PDF documents from SMW pages > > > > Hi Even, > > Would you know why the Collection extension does not execute the SMW > > {{#ask:}} parser function? Does it not execute all parser functions > > on a page? I'm really confused by this one, and I do have tentative > > plans to use the Collections extension. Is the Collections extension > > poorly designed? > > Your note implies it's an SMW problem, not a Collections problem. > > Regards, > > John > > > > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:06:34 +0100 > > From: "Thorbergsen, Even" <eve...@br...> > > Subject: [Semediawiki-user] PDF documents from SMW pages > > To: "sem...@li..." > > <sem...@li...> > > Message-ID: > > <11010CFD2DE5314BB7CC2F304B9C35B710C026F1@EXCHANGE2007.brreg.no> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Hi all, > > > > Does anyone know if it is or soon will be possible to generate PDF > > documents directly from a page or a set of pages containing SMW-type > > queries? > > > > I have for a while used the Collection extension in combination with > > the PDF Writer extension for creating wiki-based PDF documents. > > However, with an increasing amount of content being generated by SMW > > queries, these extensions tends to be less valuable. > > > > Regards, > > Even Thorbergsen > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure > > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, > > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this > > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > > _______________________________________________ > > Semediawiki-user mailing list > > Sem...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > _______________________________________________ > Semediawiki-user mailing list > Sem...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-user > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com |
From: Jan S. <ja...@sa...> - 2011-11-22 07:53:21
|
The way I understand Collection, it grabs the raw wikitext and renders it itself. It "knows" the standard magic words, transclusion etc, and the main extensions such as Cite/Math/ParserFunctions ("main" meaning they're used on Wikipedia), but it does not understand anything that any other extension adds to the wiki unless its functionality is implemented "within" the Collection render server as well. Also, any information that's not directly in the wikitext is not available to the render server, even if that render server is on the same machine. You can see this for yourself by configuring Collection to use the PediaPress render server; *obviously* that server has no access to the SMW tables, and thus no knowledge of the semantics. Thus, while that server doesn't understand #ask and #show, it couldn't access the semantic data even if it did. October '09 I've dived into Collection, exchanged some mails with the mailing list and one Ralf Schmitt, but they were unwilling to support SMW, and indeed unwilling to explain how to solve the problem. They just suggested to send in a patch. At the time I believed a solution could involve something like extension ExpandTemplate on the source server, where Collection would first run the raw wikitext through some sort of expandagizmo so that all parser functions had done their jobs, and be replaced with pure MW code (e.g. an {{#ask: <criteria>|format=count}} woud be replaced with <result>). This could then be rendered on the Collection render server. However, since then I learned about js-stuff and css, so there probably are some more things to tackle anyways. I still think it'd be doable, but the problem should be tackled in general, not just for SMW, or else Collection could fall on its face again as soon as I install any other extension like Variables, ArrayExtension and HeaderTabs (which I now use). This then requires cooperation between at the least a Collection application architect and a MW application architect (if there even are such persons/roles); then adding SMW application architects to the discussion would likely help. But the Collection people seemed quite unwilling to act in '09, and I couldn't say if that has changed anywhere in the mean time. Back then they seemed only interested in good prints from Wikipedia. On 20:59, Krabina Bernhard wrote: > Hi, > > I think making the Collection extension& SMW work together is a very important functionality! > > Are there SMW developers that would be interested to have an eye on that? > > Are there implementors/customers who would be willing to provide funding? > > regards, > Bernhard -- Jan "Saruman!" S. "I'm a stream of noughts and crosses in your R.A.M." |
From: Krabina B. <kr...@kd...> - 2011-11-22 08:53:28
|
Hi Jan, Hi all, thank you for the summary and thank you for your efforts. Maybe things have changed also for PediaPress/the Collection extension? Maybe we can have another try to get support from them? As Denny Vrandecic is now working for the Wikimedia Foundation Germany and PediaPress (the company behind the Collection extension) is stating to have a partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, maybe the time is now better? Denny, can you maybe talk to the PediaPress people about this? regards, Bernhard ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > The way I understand Collection, it grabs the raw wikitext and > renders > it itself. It "knows" the standard magic words, transclusion etc, and > the main extensions such as Cite/Math/ParserFunctions ("main" meaning > they're used on Wikipedia), but it does not understand anything that > any > other extension adds to the wiki unless its functionality is > implemented > "within" the Collection render server as well. Also, any information > that's not directly in the wikitext is not available to the render > server, even if that render server is on the same machine. > > You can see this for yourself by configuring Collection to use the > PediaPress render server; *obviously* that server has no access to > the > SMW tables, and thus no knowledge of the semantics. Thus, while that > server doesn't understand #ask and #show, it couldn't access the > semantic data even if it did. > > October '09 I've dived into Collection, exchanged some mails with the > mailing list and one Ralf Schmitt, but they were unwilling to support > SMW, and indeed unwilling to explain how to solve the problem. They > just > suggested to send in a patch. > > At the time I believed a solution could involve something like > extension > ExpandTemplate on the source server, where Collection would first run > the raw wikitext through some sort of expandagizmo so that all parser > functions had done their jobs, and be replaced with pure MW code > (e.g. > an {{#ask: <criteria>|format=count}} woud be replaced with <result>). > This could then be rendered on the Collection render server. However, > since then I learned about js-stuff and css, so there probably are > some > more things to tackle anyways. > > I still think it'd be doable, but the problem should be tackled in > general, not just for SMW, or else Collection could fall on its face > again as soon as I install any other extension like Variables, > ArrayExtension and HeaderTabs (which I now use). This then requires > cooperation between at the least a Collection application architect > and > a MW application architect (if there even are such persons/roles); > then > adding SMW application architects to the discussion would likely > help. > But the Collection people seemed quite unwilling to act in '09, and I > couldn't say if that has changed anywhere in the mean time. Back then > they seemed only interested in good prints from Wikipedia. > > On 20:59, Krabina Bernhard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think making the Collection extension& SMW work together is a > > very important functionality! > > > > Are there SMW developers that would be interested to have an eye on > > that? > > > > Are there implementors/customers who would be willing to provide > > funding? > > > > regards, > > Bernhard > > -- > Jan "Saruman!" S. > "I'm a stream of noughts and crosses in your R.A.M." > > |