[Callers] American Country Dances Online
Chris Weiler (home)
chris.weiler at weirdtable.org
Tue Jun 28 19:30:00 PDT 2011
I'm wondering what people's feelings are about the author's permissions
to publish their dances on the site. Does the permission transfer to the
new site, or should the new owners re-confirm with the authors.
I'd be interested in listing my dances, since they're published online
already. But I'd be interested in seeing what the new form the site
On 6/28/2011 9:27 PM, Greg McKenzie wrote:
> I really appreciate the effort to get this database back on line. It is a
> valuable resource and some continuation of it would be a great contribution
> to the dance form. I have accessed it within the last year and found it
> Owen's interface on line used very little of FileMaker's UI capabilities. I
> doubt that you would lose much to move to another format. On the other hand
> FileMaker Pro makes it very easy to update and maintain the database from
> anywhere. It could be maintained by multiple people. Once you move to a
> more "standard" database format the maintenance and expansion of the
> database would be less accessible to folks without such technical
> skills,...like me.
> I suspect FileMaker Pro 4 was used because it was the first version that
> allowed the easy publishing of a database on the Web. It is amazing how
> quickly you can get a database on line with FileMaker Pro. I once built an
> entire bug-tracking system and published it on line in four days using
> FileMaker Pro!
> I look forward to seeing what develops.
> - Greg McKenzie
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing<
> winston at slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> William wrote:
>>> It looks like FileMaker4 dates from somewhere around 1997 to 1999.
>>> (The current version is FileMaker 11.) I can see that Russell would
>>> have tired of supporting a database in an old software package on an
>>> old machine. It definitely seems like the right answer would be
>>> migration to a standard database and scripting language, like MySQL
>>> and PHP or Python. Mind, the advantage of FileMaker seemed to be ease
>>> of UI creation, and PHP would instead tie one into deep realms of
>>> database access.
>> It seems like you'd be looking at a fairly standard CRUD with a single
>> per entry. (I've had some dreams about an online dance presentation that
>> allows commentary, like the Talmud, so you have the source and then people
>> describe teaching tips, etc. But that's really feature creep for what
>> talking about.) I don't think very deep realms of database access come
>> play - I don't think you necessarily even need a multi-table join. You
>> pretty much find sample PHP code for CRUD and adapt it; it wouldn't be a
>>> I'm due to find out more about the discussions at CDSS some time next
>>> week. Ideally, the ACDOL material could pour directly into a new
>>> database, but setting one up would take some time. Depending on what
>>> I hear, perhaps it'd be possible and useful to get the ACDOL material
>>> on-line in a read-only form in the mean time... Hmmm... Perhaps just
>>> formatting it, and bagging the database functions could serve that
>>> end. With fewer than 300 entries, a page for each dance and an index
>>> might even suffice. That'd be a lot faster to set up than an entire
>>> web-enabled database.
>> You could add some extra value if you had multiple index pages (which you
>> could generate automatically, I think, while extracting the individual
>> index by title, index by title within formation, index by title within
>> index by title within difficulty level.
>> But this may be too much to do if the contents can just be poured into
>> CDSS is doing. (And isn't CDSS doing some fabulous stuff on the web these
>> days!) If you wanted to do something tomorrow, you could just extract to
>> (or, say, |-delimited ASCII) and let people import it and sort and search
>> their heart's content.
>> All since you asked for thoughts.
>> -- alan
>> Alan Winston --- WINSTON at SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
>> Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone:
>> Paper mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 99, 2575 Sand Hill Rd, Menlo Park CA
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at sharedweight.net
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at sharedweight.net
More information about the Callers