Supporting tables in web design
Jan 12 11:23:28
Test site availability from around the globe
Nov 7 0:53:22
Clamshell - an OpenID server
Jun 20 5:33:06
Writing Strategic Initiatives
Mar 6 3:08:15
Writing a strategy document
Mar 6 3:00:53
Okay, compiling my own stack has already frustrated (and scared) me to death before, but this set of instructions seems almost simple enough to follow:
Perl's looking a little long in the tooth these days -- there are so many more exciting languages out there, like PHP, Python and Ruby. But there's still an enormous wealth of programs being written and updated on CPAN, and Perl still excels at the text-based manipulation which it got famous for.
If Perl 6 ever comes out, that may be interesting, although I'm still unsure of the impact of all the syntax and keyword changes. Seems even more complex than before!
On the other hand, I just found out about the PAR-Packer tool, which allows you to easily convert any Perl program into an EXE file. Previously, the only easy method to my knowledge was the proprietary perl2exe tool from IndigoStar.
(UPDATE: Their Design Goals Questionnaire is also really useful.)
Practical advice from the xml-dev mailing group, so these people do it every day.
It's funny how as soon as you move into a new technical domain, there is a corresponding new set of jargon. For example, I've recently started working at the National Museum of Australia, and am learning heaps about information management, and data interchange. These guys have forgotten more about managing large semi-structured and non-structured datasets than most IT people ever learn!
(Sidenote: The sheer number number of XML and non-XML dialects to describe different structures of information is quite staggering, for example. Finding anything "definitive" in terms of standards is really quite tough.)
These quotes from Kelly Green caught my eye from an actKM discussion:
Information systems require clearly delineated properties. I think many people involved in this space would agree that this is an artificial boundary and that the boundaries in "real world" are more elastic.
Ontologies are good for illuminating subjects -- but they seem to also constrain them.
Maybe the Web world needs a space for "fuzzy categories" -- call them "associations" or "resemblances"? Where a topic can be 70% related to 'fluffy bunnies'?
This is old, but read this article. Now.
(a) Microsoft plays hard ball.
(b) They really don't understand people very well.
The four key elements of modern enterprises are people, process, technology, and content.
Patrick Lambe has produced a fantastic diagram (p.15) which shows how many information-related disciplines (and many which people think are not related) can be placed on a visual diagram where the job's "attraction" to one of these poles is noted by how close it lies to that pole. (NB: Patrick uses the term "business" instead of "process".)
Thought for the day:
The term "ontology" isn't well-understood by lay people. Part of the confusion stems from its similarity to another term dealing with classification, the better-known "taxonomy". (There is a great primer document on the differences between ontology, taxonomy and classification available online.)
The word "ontology" is derived from Greek words meaning "the study of being or existance". Personally, I find it helps to think of ontology as the "science of thing-ness". So ontology asks the questions: What is this? What is that? And (critically) how does this relate to that?