[Bell Historians] The ongoing evolution of Dove online

[Richard Smith]

Chris Pickford via Bell-historians wrote:

> For what it’s worth, I tried to make the case to a former CCCBR president
> that the ideal would be to have ONE bells database, but with two (or more)
> interfaces for users (e.g. a ringing based one for ringers and a historical
> one for heritage users). Editing rights could be assigned to experts in
> different areas (e.g. a ringer could be responsible for practice nights,
> toilets, stairs, trip-advisor type “ratings” etc. A bell expert would look
> after historical and metric data. The CBC could keep the “listing” data up
> to date). The core data (place names, dedications, geo-locations etc) would
> – very necessarily - be controlled centrally.
> 
> I’m aware of other data applications of this sort – where those with the
> greatest interest in or need for the data take responsibility for
> maintaining parts of the whole. It works, because those with the requisite
> knowledge handle the bits where they have the expertise – and those who need
> the data have an interest in ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the
> information. Separate interfaces would help to ensure that users only get
> the data they’re interested in – not a lot of (to them) irrelevant rubbish
> (e.g. I don’t care about toilets when I’m looking bells up on the NBR)

These are all policy questions for the Dove Stewards and/or 
Central Council in due course.  However, as the lead 
developer of the new Dove system, I've tried to design the 
it to be future proof.  These are all ideas I've considered, 
and they seem like ideas the Dove Stewards might reasonably 
wish to pursue in the future (and personally think they are 
worth pursuing – except that I have practical reservations 
about a "Trip Advisor"-like rating system).  I hope the 
design of the new system is such that they would be fairly 
straightforward to implement in the future – at least from 
the technical side.

RAS