PARTICIPANT ELEVEN

 - Yep at first class links
 - Mmmhmm at transclusion
 - Ok at generic links

3:21 CAKE
 - Clarify assume WP dataset
 - Uses quick reference from the bottom
 - Does Food as a test and previews
 - Flour, could sweetening agent, sugar, "stuff that is a name for something, or has some facts about it is where I'd put them, and you could do that ad infinitum on this page almost"
 - Doesn't want to go through it all
I: So, could you think of a way you could do that which wouldn't need you to go through the page and find all those things?
P: So, presumably that would be this keyword thing? <I: Yup> <P: Ok> <I: Generic linking>
P: Use generic linking. So I could change those /to/ generic links, and see if any of the pages hit that as a keyword, and thus it links to that page, right?
P: So presumably if I said edit that...and you have a way of, er, you don't have that in the quick reference then I presume. So I'd have to go back and look at the example for that, because I already can't remember it because that's how good I am at wiki markup.
 - Goes to demo and edits the page with the demo work in to get the embedded form of the link; copies
P: How do I know where it's going /to/? [x2] Cause don't you want the other page, say Food, to be the page that adds to this page? Or is it the other way around. Or have I misunderstood you.
I: Adds to?
P: So...if I was to copy that to the other page you've still got the link here that says this is to=Demo.6, right? <I: Yep> But what I want to do is provide a link where I don't know if the page exists but I'd like it to be a magical world. <I: yes> Presumably. So...wouldn't I have to make a page where that /is/ the magical word? No.
I: Well, you have to specify a target, but the target doesn't necessarily have to exist. <P: Yes.>
 - Goes to paste into Cake, notes that the link has changed "into a slightly different form"; I: "it's added a couple of IDs, yes"
 - Replaces with pasted version; sets ID to "something else, like FoodLink?"
P: ...the target would be Food, and the link type is a magicalword. What would happen there?
 - Preview, get text of magicaldemoword, change content to Food
 - Save, see what happens
P: It would do nothing because there's no page that represents that currently.
I: Might be. Have a look at the source again please?
 - Link has gone away. Pointed out anchor id of _, system then ignored it. 
 - Paste back in, take out IDs this time "because presumably it makes one"; "that would make more sense, 'cause that would make more sense in what it did over here" (previous, normal links).
 - Save again; get link, which goes to word Food

10:29 SHELF
 - Edits source of Shelf, notes links on that page itself look correct, must be others somewhere else on the wiki
P: Presumably there's a way...
P: Right, so if we go down the bottom, presumably you've got stuff that says 'links to Shelf' <I: mmmhmm>, which is this page here, so it'd be that. [River Etherow]
 - Looks at context of page, then back at Shelf, to work out which
 - Edit source of Shelf to copy link
 - Go back to river to change link there
P: Presumably that's the traditional way of doing it, wherever that link is.
 - Save
P: Presumably, there is a slightly easier way of doing that, because that's just a link, with an ID, which I can go and edit.
 - Suggest for the other page to try that
 - Clicks link name in relation table for Shelf, the Albatross.link.X, "which would go to...?"
 - Looks at article itself to get idea of where to
 - Get ContinentalShelf name out of address bar after going there via Shelf
 - Go to edit Albatross.link.X
 - Paste new target into attribute table, save
 - Click to go back to the Albatross.anchor
P: Which shows the relations, fair enough, I was hoping to get back to the page from there, because it said source.
I: Yeah. The source is the anchor within the page.
P: The source is the anchor within the page. There's no way of getting back from that anchor to the page itself. Which I thought, hang on a second, why can't you do that. ... ... Cause surely the anchor has a relation to the page.
 - Go back via Shelf, not in relation table, but can go via ContenentalShelf
 - (16:20--21 is weird garbling)
 - Links to right place
P: Like that feature.
I: You're right that anchors should link back to parent pages.

16:54 VILLAINS
 - Familiar with films (knew Jaws in both before pages loaded)
P: Right, so, presumably, Jaws appears in both films, so you don't want to edit both pages.
 - Looks at page source to start with
 - Concludes that the Jaws section is the same copy-pasted between the two
P: Ok so...presumably you'd want to include that, because it's the same...article on both pages. And there is a way of doing that, isn't there? <I: Yep> If I could remember what it was.
 - Point to transclusion examples, looks at Demo.3 transcluding Demo.4
P: So if I made a page about Jaws, ok, and included it, then, we could...yeah, so transclude it other words.
P: I presume they're both the same.
P: They're the same up until that point.
P: Get rid of that [difference] then, and that's the section which is the same.
 - Cuts section
 - Assumes page creation is "what you always do": "make a page and it asks you to add some content"; edits address bar, and it does.
 - Paste in section
 - Checks Demo.4 (transcluded example) to see if anything special applied to it; nothing
 - Consults Demo.3 (example transclusion); takes link and deletes IDs
 - Preview doesn't show; Jaws page not saved yet; preview doesn't do this yet anyway; save works
 - Re-edits page and the other villain film
P: So the transclusion now includes all of that [content], so it's not as easy to copy the link, is what I'd say.
 - Take out section on other page. Spots that copying link /would/ work, as it's the same content.
P: Presumably, you could get a race condition there. [edit inline trans, edit page being transed]
 - Explain that that will get caught as a conflict
P: And it will catch it as a conflict, will it? Oh, ok!
 - Ponders to self if anything will tell you that two things are editing at once, no it won't
 - Adds metallic teeth to Jaws page
 - Checks has changed on both films

24:46 BELGIUM
P: Now attributes, presumably, are just triples, included from somewhere. If it's going to make any sense like the infobox.
 - Edit page, spots attributes at bottom in big box. Ponders to self how to add one. Assumes other box. Adds EUAccessionDate. Uses date format from one seen aboev. Save, and scroll down.
P: Are they in alphabetical order? Yeah they are. So that's now added.
I: Ok. Yep. Er.
P: Did you want that another way? That was fairly easy. Painless.
 - Go back to editing. Note that earlier used table to edit Albatross link.
I: Do you know why there's a distinction between the table and the Other box?
P: Because these are, presumably these links, that are put in somewhere else...between...pages and things. Like on the Albatross page for example. Erm, so you've got, I don't know, root node relation or something. So presumably you can put these in, somewhere else.
 - Prompts to click on one, like Anthem
P: Yeah, it's an attribute isn't it, so how do you /create/ one? Is the question. Haven't seen that yet.
 - Point out domain/range/type. Show how they link up.
P: Oh, ok. I'm still confused.
 - Explain type->domain->suggested attribute matching
P: Oh right, OK.

28:42 MULTIPLE UNITS
 - Could just delete "OfIreland" from address bar and create a page that way "but we want to create some form of relation between these things"
P: See you've made me think in terms of your wiki now and as to what you would do.
P: Because obviously you do want some relations between these things.
 - Looks at Shelf for inspiration, "because although that's a disambiguation page it does have all the links, doesn't it"
P: What I want do is relate these pages to each-other, by saying...
 - Copy page address, make new page for MultipleUnits
 - Add some text; link to MUoI; one for Elektrichka
P: Now that those are linked, we can see the relations to those pages. Presumably if we refresh /these/ pages (MUoI/Elek), it'll tell you, that the MU page now links to this page. <I: Yep> So we now have a relation.
P: So that's all the useful information that I think I would require on this. <I: Right> Anything else you'd do?
 - Tiny summaries of each
P: So you could include that from this page, presumably. <I: Yep> In some way. So how would you do that.
P: Without including the whole page. Can you transclude a part of a page?
I: No, you can only transclude whole pages.
P: [pause] Oh.
I: Effectively, you did transclude part of the Moonraker page, and share that with part of the other James Bond (film) page.
P: By making a new page which is about just that subsection. <I: Mmm.>
P: But why would you want to do that in this case. Can't you have subaddressing?
I: No, not within components.
P: Not with wiki...so you /would/ have to make a page that was just a summary of this page (MUoI), and then include it in this page and the other page (MU). <I: Yes.>
P: And that seems like a lot of work, if you don't mind me saying.
 - Fair criticism.
P: It would be nice to be able to have, say, subaddress because clearly on these pages you've got this is the first introduction paragraph before the first title and most Wikipedia pages have these. A clear introductory section. And it would be nice to, say, if you're going to make a page that summarises all of these just to transclude that exact section. Without having to say go MultipleUnitsOfIrelandIntro, make page, paste it in there...copy the link, save the page, go back to MultipleUnitsOfIreland, edit that page...delete the content, link, type=transclusion...something like that? <I: You've got it>
 - Sets up link
 - I: That's the right structure, can you think of way to set up not involving go off creating page via address bar and things
P: Magic word? <I: No> Don't have to make a new page in the address bar...
I: It's possible not to.
P: Oh, so you can ID a section? No? <I: No.> No.
 - Show with Elektrichka putting trans inline immediately, creating the page as the change pushes through
P: Oh you've done it backwards! You've done it backwards, I see. So you've created the page by telling it this is the content to be on that page.
 - Show Elek same, but summary node now also exists
P: So you did in fact mark up a node, which is what I meant by give a node (section?) an ID (XML sense?), but what you actually said was you gave---you give it a page, by doing the transclusion backwards. <I: Yes.>

P: So, what's the difference in this system between---I mean this is the subject OK I'm thinking triples because I think Semantic Web. <I: Mmm> So if we're thinking that this is the subject...of the page, we've got these things called---we've got things /pages/, which are referenced by the 'to' node, and we've got sections which can be referenced by an id.
I: No. Ids don't go to sections. IDs refer to links. And a link itself is a page.
P: And a link itself is a page, so presumably that's a 'to' page. So the 'to' link is the subject. Or the object if you like. And it's just a matter of understanding...that that syntax, the to link can be a subject, so instead of saying "I want this section to have an ID and then include it everywhere else", it's actually using the word "to" as your ID.
I: I see what you're getting at. (Do I?!)
P: In a certain sense. So if I say div class or div id= this and go and find that div and include it here or change the contents of it you are in fact using the syntax to=, rather than id=...which is...it's just a matter of the meaning of id=, in this system the meaning of id is just a unique identifier given to some /thing/.
I: Hmm.
P: But that something doesn't have any, erm...meaning itself, I guess, in terms of, it's not a page, it doesn't tell you if it's a page, so...
I: Well that ID is not specific to this link appearing here. It's the name of the actual link Elektrichka.link.2 which says "there's a link /from/ within Elektricka /to/ ElekSum and it's of type Transclusion".
P: Yeah. And I guess the thing I'm not used to in terms of---
I: The actual identify of /this piece here/, not the text, this-this thing in the document, is actually the anchor ID 1 of Elektrichka. It's Elektricka.anchor.1.
P: Yeah. I guess the thing I'm not used to is the fact that normally within these links you have to put the link of the thing it's /to/, rather than the content of the link.

38:28 LONDON UNDERGROUND
 - Just adds fact to beginning
P: Presumably though that's a nice attribute thing to have (date started)
 - Would possibly do so if real system as "it's a fact, so technically it should go in an infobox" (not subject to change, either)
 - Add to TiL
P: So at which point it probably /should/ be an attribute, down the bottom, and then I can include it in place, right? Or not?
I: Not in this system.
P: Not in this system.
I: But you're thinking of a thing which should exist, yeah. You'd like to do it that way?
P: I'd like to do it that way, in terms of yeah this attribute is included in both of these places.
 - Goes to TiL via Homepage, see LondonUnderground section and that it has main article link, and that "the summary below it is not taken from London Underground"
P: So we could just do the same thing and make the transclusion, like we did before, in the previous section to include that piece of text that I've just included and put on the other site at the top of the intro paragraph. But that wouldn't guarantee if someone changed it that that fact would still appear on this page.
P: Yeah?
I: Someone could remove it, yes.
P: Yeah, someone could remove it from the other page.
I: If they removed it (the transcluded block?) from the other page, it would still stay on this one.
P: Yes.
 - Creates transclusion "the other way around" because TiL is a better intro
P: Er, you can't combine two transclusions, can we. But what I could do is that that that's the London Underground summary <I: ok>...just do it this way...so that's our London Underground summary saved.
 - Same other than autoparagraphing errors
 - Then go to LU; "just making sure that that isn't included here"; creates trans link, removes old intro, pastes it into body of the trans instead.
P: [laugh] What's your changes system going to do? <I: Find out> Is it going to merge or overwrite?
P: That overwrote the page; it didn't merge.
I: Because the other had already finished---it wasn't strictly a conflict.
P: Yes. So it overwrote the transclusion <I: Yes> because I completely---because I made one that already existed. <I: Mmmhmm>
P: So, we just lost the content of the transclusion completely. Except, to go to...whatever I called it...if we go to the page itself and hit history...
 - Rummaging
P: Copy out from editing old version, edit new version, and combine.
 - Would have merged properly in real system
 - (Paragraphination turns it all into an error)
 - P points out race condition where someone has /created/ a page and you also create one with the same name using transclusion; no edit conflict occurs
P: And in fact the two people have technicall---well they've been editing different pages but technically they've actually been editing the same page but there's no warning about that.

46:48 WRAP UP
P: I like the system. I like the system, erm, in terms of those people who are thinking semantically about things it's a very good way to see a wiki going. Particularly the when we have people say the there's---[identify self in recoding]---project who /constant/ edit our wiki pages and try to organise the wiki and I have a feeling that some of these things would be...would help them---would help us out greatly because it would get rid of a whole lot of these duplication of data. Because templates are all well and good but they're not brilliant for just being able to say "include this here include that there", which this seems to be better at doing than than saying OK put a template or something in. Erm, so I like that factor.
P: Erm. I'm guessing all the linking in---works anyway with things like Wikipedia, I don't know what's added there because I've never really used semantic linking with Mediawikis. So I can't afford to comment there, but er, again it's quite nice to have all the relations between everything and make the link a first-class object, 'cause then you can re-use them, and I liked that as well.
P: But er, seems like a nice piece of work. <I: Thanks> I have to say, I like it.

 - Yes results
 - Yes voucher

