On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 07:40:31PM +0200, David MENTRE wrote: > echarp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > To me, the tags/keywords seem like a strange kludge. Why this > > bottleneck? Why use them for delegations? Why not a simpler hierarchy > > that would/could map to a simple text (/part/chapter/section/...)? > > Having a single hierarchy was our original idea and was implemented in > 0.2, with delegation. However, there is a fundamental flaw in it: how do > you set the order between hierarchy levels? E.g.: between New York and > Ecology, which one should be put upper in the hierarchy?
This is what legislators and politicians have done for centuries. There are criminal, civil, business... categories, parts, articles, paragraphs. The flat space may be the logical result from your initial ambition: a "positions" database. You don't want to write laws, you want to influence parliamentaries. > That's why we have decided to use a flat space, with tags (aka labels) > on questions. The flat space also has some flaws: who set the tags and at what moment? how many tags and elements under a tag? what logic to organise the tags? how to avoid a very large flat space? how to present a question when it is present under different tags? how to then organise delegation conflicts? In fact organisation is important for one reason: delegations. Plus I believe a good one could be mapped to other standard ways to use internet: mailingList/newsgroup/forum... > "Normalizing" tags allow us to hope to have a single keyword (aka tag) > behind a concept. It will be difficult to ensure. Depends on who set the tag(s) I guess. > But as underlined many times, that does not preclude others to build > more elaborated classifications or event their own classification (no > Serge, I haven't said ontology ;-). In a large flat space, navigational aids will be necessary. _______________________________________________ Demexp-dev mailing list Demexp-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/demexp-dev
