@vocx everything you say is what I'm slowly doing with the wiki. But I can't do i alone. There is the added complication that some packages have so little documentation that the wiki may be their primary documentation. I'm trying to deal with this by using categories.
@ReD_CoDE where are you thinking those icons could be useful? Do you have some examples for where they could be used?
Hi @Moult & @theoryshaw is this your staircase? https://forums.buildingsmart.org/t/presenting-blender-as-a-new-ifc-authoring-tool/1791/65
I'd like to add some of that to the OSArch wiki as examples of documentation. But I'd like a short description of what's in them. Especially in general terms how much is model based and how much is added outside the modelling software (in Inkscape?)
@duncan it's a steel staircase with wooden cantilever treads I did for a co-worker to build at his house. It was all model based, nothing was added in Inkscape.
@Moult I'd love to include them in the wiki. Are the project files available and copy-left?
I'm thinking our software list is starting to break down - we really need tags instead of separate lists. Make sense? It's easy enough to do, just requires links to category lists for each agreed "tag".
I think one of the tags should be actively used by a list member.
@baswein said: I think one of the tags should be actively used by a list member.
@baswein Can you spell out for me what you mean? Do you mean like which software has a contact person/active user in osarch? That could be done. Just now I'm thinking more along the lines of what tags we would use that make finding the software you want easy. Similar to the current sections of the software list.
@bitacovir has pointed out that a list is a very good way for people to get a quick view of what's around. I agree, I don't think tags/categories can fully replace a list. My interest in bringing this up is for tags on the software pages so that one can go from one software page with a list of 'capability tags' directly to list of other packages with the same 'capability tags'. Just like now if you find Blender, it leads you to the Blender Addons list (category).
https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Blender
https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=Category:Blender_Add-on
But making a list of functional descriptions would require a team effort.
@duncan exactly- a software that is actively being used by one of the members is more likely to be of use to someone else vs a software that is not used by anyone on the forum but on paper seems useful. Also some of the software on the list are libraries or primarily dependencies or are used as plugins to other software. Here is a clumsy example that might be headed in the right direction: I use QGIS everyday so that could be tagged a Used by OSArch member however Grass GIS I don't use the GUI directly but I do use it to run certain functions though QGIS GUI so that would be tagged as Used by OSArch member through another software and QGIS uses GDAL as a library so that would be used as a library by OSArch member.
Obviously this needs work but what I am trying to get at is some way to get the softwares that are actively used by members to float to the top in some way. Maybe it's stars or something.
@baswein I've wondered about an agreed statement of intent people can 'sign'. On each software page there can then be a list of 'members' who use that software. Does that sound useful?
I've been working a bit on the front page. I think it's getting there. Behind the scenes there is now more structure to the pages so we can rework the front page to make more use of main software/subject pages supplemented by links to categories. I'd like a good GIS image if someone has one to share.
I've made a stub page for https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=OpenFOAM
Feel free to help expand it. Who are our OpenFOAM users here?
I might suggest in prioritize efforts in one unique workflow, and make that workflow for the main branch, for example for create links and diagrams.
Similar to this:
... pulling efforts in multiple directions do not look efficient
PD: we need more diagrams, gift, videos, templates, samples, etc.
Another suggestion is to implement BCF API to the server, with BFC API the website might create a collaboration interface similar to Facebook and Twitter, I mean convert OSARCH in a BIM server
@duncan said:
I've made a stub page for https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=OpenFOAM
Feel free to help expand it. Who are our OpenFOAM users here?
That's a good question ... I have used it "indirectly" through a 3rd party service for wind analysis (www.simscale.com) so I wouldn't consider myself a user. I think it will be a challenge find OpenFOAM users in this group as it is mostly used by mechanical engineers. Let's see.
@duncan the work you are doing is invaluable!!
I think that @baswein's idea to associate usability of software and libraries by OSArch members makes sense. Not sure what is the best format but it resonates strongly with me, I think it would give better visibility of what we use and for what people can also look for support, advice, etc.
a feature is in my wish list is to a section with requests and votes talking about our wish list for other forums.
example 1:
sweet home 3d users need import export IFC files, but a request in the forum is read after months and in this case, the developers do not finish the work because they think none want that feature, if we do a post and receive multiple votes, the developer might notice that such feature is needed.
http://www.sweethome3d.com/support/forum/viewthread_thread,10345
example 2:
if many people vote a post for request a LibreCAD 3 add support for AutoLisp and 3D drawing, then we might share our post with many votes to the developers and they might prioritize that feature.
https://forum.librecad.org/AutoLisp-translator-to-Lua-td5719472.html
@duncan said:
@baswein I've wondered about an agreed statement of intent people can 'sign'. On each software page there can then be a list of 'members' who use that software. Does that sound useful?
That seems like it could be useful. I guess it starts to open up governance questions like what does it mean to be a member. And what would it mean, and what would it take, for a software to be approved by the OSArch community.
I'm going to post some thoughts on governance in a different there this in different thread.
@baswein said:
I'm going to post some thoughts on governance in a different there this in different thread.
Great! I'm guessing I'll have something to say - I usually do. I like what you've written in the 'Vision for OSArch' thread. Maybe just keep talking there ...
For the sake of this discussion I think adding an account to the wiki and adding a name under a statement should be enough. No need to get formal before we have a governance structure. It's all just about building the group and the usefulness of the website - real governance takes time.
@Jesusbill thanks!
@jtm2020hyo you've got lots of interesting I like to hear how you think some of them can be implemented and what you think would give the project the most value for the least effort. Maybe that's a place to start. For now, I'd love to see if you could add some things to the main software list. https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AEC_Free_Software_directory
I've added a category of categories and linked to it from the front page. My reasoning (and this is relevant to @jtm2020hyo post with the great mindmap) is that the relationship between software tools is neither linear non one-to-one. One package has a relationship to many others and can be relevant at many stages in a workflow. To me this means that categories need to be the backbone of the site structure. We can make as many workflows as we want, and they are important, but I think being able to find things based on their relationship to each other is primary.
@JanF you've made a few suggestions about the structure of the wiki, the front page, translations, etc. Maybe we could talk about that here? You've been doing some work on the BlenderBIM pages, do you have some thoughts on ways of organising the pages? Does it work okay with the banners that link to categories? It seems like a way to grow fast and flexibly until we have a really structured approach.
Yeah I thought we'd continue on the talk page as you suggested, but as it doesn't give notifications it's rather slow. I'll prepare my take on the main page as you said and post my thoughts here.
@duncan I've added my version of the main page to my talk (it's a draft, please handle with care)
I like the banners a lot.
Here are some very basic thoughts from the discussion we had in the monthly meetup today.
We need to make our purpose and identity clearer. Are we promoting a single solution or an ecosystem of tools? (hint: it's an ecosystem). A focus on workflows is good - but we don't have good examples on the wiki yet. I've questioned this approach before since some tools are used at several stages in a process. There are some projects in the works now and maybe the Open Source House or wikilab could get some more attention? https://wiki.osarch.org/index.php?title=AECO_Workflow_Examples
Other than that there was not too much to say, I can only suggest that people go and take a look at the wiki and see if the structure works. The structural decisions we make on the wiki now are going to stick with us for a while into the future.
Login or Register to reply.