Can you explain what you mean by 2.13.1?

This point has to do with derivative content, like someone who writes a translation of a particular entry. We want to make it possible for people to make derivatives (as allowed by the Creative Commons license chosen) but keep the citation information for the original intact, and provide a link to the original material.

What about related objects, things with multiple authors?

This question particularly raised issues of content like music which might have sheet music, lyrics, and perhaps an audio file of some sort. We imagine that each piece would be uploaded separately, but then linked through its metadata in some way. Certainly it would be helpful to be able to designate, as you upload a file, if it could work well with something else already on the site.

For something with multiple authors, we would need to be able to list all the authors linked to that content entry, but would require space to list contact information, etc. for each author.

Will you need batch entry options, or only individual entry options?

Right now we’re anticipating primarily individual entry options, but being able to upload batches of material would be helpful.

Do you intend to provide the “look and feel” of the site, or should a responder to the RFP do so?

We have left that somewhat open. Ideally we would like a respondent to create a “look and feel” for the site — even perhaps coming up with a better name! — but we will work with the proposals submitted to choose the best option within what’s possible.

Can you explain more of what you mean by the use case in 3.3 of the RFP?

Part of what we’re trying to describe here is a reviewing system in which anyone can see how other people have reviewed specific pieces of content. This question also elicited the clarification that we intend to use folksonomies for tagging, so that people can use the tags they find most useful. In this use case we imagine someone searching by age category, by language, and by reviewer rating.

What kind of governance model do you have available for this project, or do you intend to use?

The closest example we can point to is something like the Wikipedia project. Currently we have a governance structure described on our site that consists of a coordinating group, a set of working groups, and an assembly. We want this project to be as open and collaborative as we can make it!

What facility will we have for contacting copyright holders for commercial use?

We do not anticipate having much facility for this at all. Basically all we intend is for it to be very clear who has posted specific content, with viable contact information present. We DO state that we need a clear mechanism so that if anyone believes there is content on the site that has been posted by someone who does NOT own clear copyright, they can contact the site’s administrators so that we can remove the content.

I’m going to try and summarize our conference call a bit by noting the questions that were asked, and trying to repeat our answers here. The first main question had to do with the notion of “channels” and what we mean by them.

The idea of “channels” was developed to create a space in which a specific group could sanction certain content. Content that is part of a “channel” will be available to everyone else the same way any content on the site is available, but content can only be posted to a specific channel by the channel’s administrators.

Anyone who’s interested in responding to our RFP is also invited to be part of a conference call we’re doing tomorrow, December 1, at 2:30 pm central time (US), via Skype. In order to participate, please send me (Mary Hess) your username (at mhess at luthersem dot edu), or ask me to be on your contact list (mine is Hessmary), and I’ll dial you into the call near that time.

Olivier Schopfer, the web editor at the WCC, has offered us some really helpful advice as we consider ways to do the technical infrastructure for our OSRR publishing website. He graciously agreed to let me share it here:

“Now talking about technical aspects from the point of view of our own experience here at WCC: we have been using a content management system called Typo3 for two years now (See www.typo3.org and www.typo3.com). I really think that this framework would be ideal to implement the website you are thinking of. It is a very flexible system, and most of the features that you need are available either as part of the core, or as extensions (there are hundreds of extensions available). The whole system is based on PHP and MySQL. A set of APIs and wizards allows a developer to easily expand or customize existing extensions, or create new ones from scratch.

Here is a set of websites that we developed using Typo3:

• http://library.wcc-coe.org (Our first project)
• http://www.mission2005.org
• http://overcomingviolence.org
• http://www.wcc-usa.org
• http://www.wcc-assembly.info
• http://www.oikoumene.org

Among the main features that we use across our websites:

• 1) Localization. One can navigate from one language to the others at any level of the page tree, as long as translations are available.
• 2) News system. Is used for the display of news items on the homepage and various other places and for their distribution by e-mail (at the moment only our weekly summaries). It includes RSS support.
• 3) Events calendar.
• 4) Sitemap and menus are automatically maintained.
• 5) Search engine (we recently moved to a Google based search engine, it’s working fine and unloads our server). We also produce Google sitemaps.
• 6) Database of statements and official documents, with advanced search (our own development). See http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents.html.
• 7) Digital asset management system (for the backend), mostly used to manage photos. See for instance http://www.oikoumene.org/en/events-sections/cc2006/news-media/photos.html
• 8) Discussion forum.

Now, following your requirements:

• 2.1) Localization. See above. There is unicode support, and we have done with some content in Arabic and Hebrew, and entire pages in Greek.
• 2.2) Templating. Design and content are completely separate. Typo3 provides two
  ways of templating. The new “templavoila” system is very flexible.
• 2.3) User registration. There is an extension for this, that is quite flexible. We tested it, but don’t use it for the moment as we have another system in place that was existing before we migrated to a CMS.
• 2.4) Statistics. Basic and advanced statistics are available. As everything is
  logged, it is quite easy to expand them so that they will fit your needs.
• 2.5) Homepage. See our various examples. The advanced templating system allows
  the reuse of some components on the homepage and on some channel pages.
• 2.6) Channel pages. I like the idea of a form to contribute with a translation.
  Typo3 has an easy mechanism for implementing online forms that are then sent as e-mails or added to a database table. Access rights for front end users are managed in a very clean way.
• 2.7) Lists of channels. In my opinion, the closest to your idea of “channels” would be an adapted kind of forum/blog. This would bring the flexibility
  of lists and so on. But there are other approaches.
• 2.8) Site institutional section. This is standard content, no problem.
• 2.9) Full text search. See above. We implemented Google searches.
• 2.10) Advanced search engine. See above for our advanced search engine related to our statements and documents database. In our experience, developing such a tool is not problematic, as long as the criteria are properly defined. But the real issue is at the other end: categorisation of items needs to be done in a very careful way.
• 2.11) Contribute content. This is obviously where a specific frontend extension will need to be developed. If done with Typo3, I suggest that it could be connected with the digital asset management extension (DAM).
• 2.12) File formats. Along with the Typo3 DAM comes a set of extensions that will
  extract the metadata from some of the standard formats, thus speeding up the indexation process, in connection with the advanced search engine. This works particularly well with Word docs, pdfs, jpg images (using EXIF and IPTC fields).
• 2.13) Contribute translation. A great idea! As indicated above, Typo3 is good at connecting different language versions of the same content.
• 2.15) Channel section. No comments.
• 2.16) Send to a friend. Typo3 has a good extension for that, including anti-SPAM
  options.
• 2.17) Ranking. There is also a good extension available.
• 2.18) Site control panel. Typo3 provides both a backend and a frontend interface to work on the website. The management of access rights is quite advanced. Rights can be granted for groups and for individuals. They will define the interface, the modules accessible, the data tables that can be viewed/changed, the fields that appear on the forms, the pages that can be edited, the kind of content elements that the users is allowed to create and so on. All the extensions developed within the framework become part of the typo3 security. About languages, there is a nice tool that gives an overview of what is and what is not translated.
• 2.19) Channel control panel
• 2.20) Mailing list system. We use a Typo3 extension called DirectMail. It fits all your requirements. In surplus, it provides interesting statistics about the messages that have been read, and the links in the messages that have been clicked.
• 2.21) Security. See above. Typo3 provides two separate security schemes, one for frontend users, one for backend users.
• 2.22) RSS. See above. RSS is part of the news system. All pages can also be rendered as XML.

Now what about consultancy and expertise?

Typo3 has been created in Denmark, and is particularly wide spread in Northern Europe (especially Germany), less in the US, although it’s changing. The typo3.com website provides links to a number of registered consultants. I can advise you on some that we have been working with, but at the moment, we try to do most
of our developments ourselves.”