In Progress

• Community Posts for Bookmarks

Next Steps

1. Enable Line breaks in text fields (if actually easily feasible) and thusly react to [http://literaturverwaltung.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/neue-bewertungs-und-kommentierfunktion-bei-bibsonomy/]
2. Lucene (Make Ratings & Index for Community Posts available)

Ideas resp. Next Features

excerpt from sdo's mail vom 19. Juli:

"Recently-Reviewed"-Page

TODOs

• Controller + View + SQL Statements

Fragen

INDEX user_name, date in Tabelle discussion vorhanden?

Implementierung

pseudosql: SELECT <attributes> FROM gold_standard g WHERE g.simhash1 IN (SELECT DISTINCT interHash FROM discussion d WHERE d.user_name = #userName# ORDER BY d.date ) AND entry_type = #entryType# (Bookmark oder Publication) LIMIT #limit# OFFSET #offset#

Don't forget join with ratings chache!

Oder-By-Review for Post Lists

In Queries with tags the corresponding sql statement isn't nice => Lucene

Best-Reviewed-Author

LUCENE

TODOs

• Rewrite PictureController so it may render multiple sizes of the user's picture

• Write Script for cleaning Discussion Page (i.e. deleting deleted comments without children)

Before Release

• Adjust Mobile View

• Help Messages

After Release

• check if and how these feature requests are fulfilled:

  • Personal and collective rating (Display of rating is missing). Idea: Display when user hovers over Rating with mouse => with AJAX. Status: Complied.

  • Public list of notes. Status: Complied.

  • Discuss an item: have a forum-style discussion tool for each item - ala digg / connotea. Status: Complied.

  • Making private note / PDF available to group or friends. Status: Partially complied, partially not possible.

When Puma II Features are unlocked

Open Questions

• Support in REST API?

• "Allow" links in reviews / comments (clickable through JavaScript?)

• editing review / comments when they already have children.

• Scenario Changing Text

  + User A writes review / comment
  
  + User B answers user A's review / comment with own comment
  
  + User A then changes their review in such a way so user B's comment doesn't make sense anymore
  

  • Scenario Changing Visibility

    • User A writes review / comment (e.g. visibility public)

    • User B answers user A's review / comment with own comment

    • User A changes visibility to group G, so certain users don't see any coherence between both comments

    • effects also the SPAM Framework (Non-Spammer => Spammer); Deleting User (=marking as spammer)

• Deleting reviews / comments

  • Should all sub-comments be deleted? Or creating a "mock" comment and displaying something along the lines of "this comment has been deleted or you cannot view it"; also a solution for editing visibilities)

• Timeline à la Facebook (user 'nosebrain' commented on BibSonomy: ...; user 'dbenz' reviewed BibSonomy: ...; ...)?

Annotations

• private comments -> private notices

Discussed Sites

Visibility

/discussed

• IS: requestedUserName not given

• Only authors with toClassify = 0 (i.e. already have been classified)

• group >= 0 => no discussions of authors marked as spammers

• not loggedIn (username not given)

  • only public discussionItems (d.group = 0)

• is loggedIn (userName given)

  • Group of discussionItems must be either public or one of the user's groups

/discussed/user/USER

• IS: requestedUserName is given

• toClassify won't be checked => everything will be displayed (if user is a spammer, then bad luck)

• group >= 0 => no discussionItems of authors marked as spammers

• only discussionItems of requestedUserName

• not loggedIn (userName not given)

  • only public discussionItems

  • only discussionItems with anonymous = 0 (in other words, only with a visible author name)

• is loggedIn (userName given)

  • loggedInUser = RequestedUser

  • no further restrictions

  • loggedInUser not requestedUser

  • only discussionItems with anonymous = 0 (in other words, only with a visible author name)

  • Group of discussionItems must be either public or one of the user's groups

discussed/group/GROUP

• IS: requestedGroupName is given

• toClassify won't be checked => everything will be displayed (if a group has spammers, then bad luck)

• group >= 0 => no discussionItems of authors marked as spammers

• Author of discussionItem in requestedGroup

• not loggedIn (userName not given)

  • Author of discussionItem is not anonymous (anonymous = 0)

  • Only public discussionItems

• is loggedIn (userName given)

  • Group of discussionItems must be either public or one of the user's groups

  • loggedIn = Author of discussionItem

  • no further recstrictions

  • loggedIn is not author of discussionItem

  • Only discussionItems with anonymous = 0 (in other words, only with a visible author name)