On 07/02/2007, at 2.25, David Powers wrote:
On 2/6/07, Steffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And a suggestion: It might be good to debate here how the database
should be designed to best do it job. Fx. would it be an idea to make
a set of (not necessarily disjunkt/non-intersecting) categories/
labels objects/libs could fit in - like math, audio, control, graphic
(inspired by http://puredata.info/dev/PdLibraries)? I mean, there
must be a quite a few opinions on how the database could be organized
in order to be of most use.
It would be nice if things could be "tagged" with keywords, rather
than categorized. That way, there's no need to think of every category
or decide on all keywords in advance, people could add keywords to
objects as they saw fit.
I agree. That what i meant by 'not necessarily non-intersecting
categories'. It might be a bad choice to use the word "category" like
that - I'm sorry.
But it was mostly meant as an example of an idea we could want in
such database. Since I0 said:
"help with database-design [...] might be appreciated"
I thought we (the potential users of the database) in this phase
could brainstorm and discuss ideas on how we would like it.
_______________________________________________
PD-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
