Template talk:Allows: Difference between revisions
A note on the usefulnes of capability pages.
No edit summary |
(A note on the usefulnes of capability pages.) |
||
Line 8:
::::: Right. My question was: if everything (in these three properties) was the name of a capability, does the "Capability" part need to be in the value? Ce brings up using it to disambiguate pages for the capability from another page by the same name, using a pseudo-namespace. Do these capabilities need pages? SMW has types other than "Page". --[[User:Coderjoe|Coderjoe]] 19:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Where would the description of those properties go? And would that constrain the flexibility (e.g. with pages we can also describe relations between capabilities with semantic markup)? My ultimate goal is still to find a way to implement an automatic omit. Since semantic wiki query has some serious constraints, I'm in fear of every additional flexibility removed, because that removed flexibility might turn out to be essential for that goal. --[[User:Ce|Ce]] 20:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Just a note: I've just added reverse lookups for requires, provides and allows (required by, provided by, allowed by). This is completely automated by inserting some code into the Capability template, which should be included into each capability anyway (this is the only thing one has to remember). I don't know how to do this without pages for capabilities. --[[User:Ce|Ce]] 13:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
| |||