On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 10:45:33PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
> Graydon wrote:
>> only you'd have to be a grammar robot to read it that way,
>
> Yeah, but I'm a software geek, not a "native speaker", so I read it
> the "that imprecision annoys me" way. :-)
Speaking as someone who once formall
On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 10:15:33AM -0600, William Robb scripsit:
> - Original Message - From: "Doug Brewer"
>> am I the only one who kept having my brain read this exchange as about
>> acrylic graphs and longing for the good old days of oil-based?
>
> I stopped reading when I ran into the
Doug Brewer wrote:
Graydon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
Graydon wrote:
Yeah, but I got taught data structures by a graph theorist, and we did
graphs, acyclic graphs, directed graphs, and then acyclic directed
graphs, so my brain thinks the acyclic is
Doug Brewer wrote:
>
>am I the only one who kept having my brain read this exchange as about
>acrylic graphs and longing for the good old days of oil-based?
Nope. I was thinking pretty much the same thing at first.
...except that I thought watercolor might be preferable, rather than
oil.
--
PDM
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Brewer"
Subject: Re: keywords in LightRoom
am I the only one who kept having my brain read this exchange as about
acrylic graphs and longing for the good old days of oil-based?
I stopped reading when I ran into the first word that I d
Graydon wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
Graydon wrote:
Yeah, but I got taught data structures by a graph theorist, and we did
graphs, acyclic graphs, directed graphs, and then acyclic directed
graphs, so my brain thinks the acyclic is a special case of d
mike wilson wrote:
>
> Graydon wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
>> > Graydon wrote:
>> >> Yeah, but I got taught data structures by a graph theorist, and we did
>> >> graphs, acyclic graphs, directed graphs, and then acyclic directed
>> >> graphs, s
Graydon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
> > Graydon wrote:
> >> Yeah, but I got taught data structures by a graph theorist, and we did
> >> graphs, acyclic graphs, directed graphs, and then acyclic directed
> >> graphs, so my brain thinks the acycl
Graydon wrote:
Sure. And strictly, strictly, "directed" and "acyclic" both modify
"graph", rather than each other, so the phrases are completely
equivalent
Oh, yeah, maybe I ought to clarify that that's what I meant when I
called "directed" and "acyclic" "orthogonal characteristics" (i.e.,
Graydon wrote:
[Directed and acyclic are orthogonal characteristics when applied to
graphs. A graph may be either, neither, or both.]
Sure.
Oh, and, just as an aside, I knew you knew that, but thought I'd include
it for the PDML members who /aren't/ steeped in graph theory. ;->
--
Thank
Graydon wrote:
only you'd have to be a grammar robot to read it that way,
Yeah, but I'm a software geek, not a "native speaker", so I read it the
"that imprecision annoys me" way. :-)
Which is how I got into this particular excavation in the first place,
and I should stop digging. :)
Nah
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Doug Franklin scripsit:
> Graydon wrote:
>> Yeah, but I got taught data structures by a graph theorist, and we did
>> graphs, acyclic graphs, directed graphs, and then acyclic directed
>> graphs, so my brain thinks the acyclic is a special case of directed,
Graydon wrote:
Yeah, but I got taught data structures by a graph theorist, and we did
graphs, acyclic graphs, directed graphs, and then acyclic directed
graphs, so my brain thinks the acyclic is a special case of directed,
rather than the other way around.
That taxonomy is not acyclic. :-)
[D
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 03:09:02PM -0400, John Francis scripsit:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 05:56:24PM +0200, AlunFoto wrote:
> >
> > I have also looked up what an "acyclic directed graph" is. :-)
>
> Usually referred to, I thought, as a Directed Acyclic Graph (aka DAG).
Yeah, but I got taught da
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 05:56:24PM +0200, AlunFoto wrote:
>
> I have also looked up what an "acyclic directed graph" is. :-)
Usually referred to, I thought, as a Directed Acyclic Graph (aka DAG).
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UN
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 05:56:24PM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit:
> Graydon,
>
> 2009/10/6 Graydon :
> > Which is what I thought I was talking about.
>
> Then I must apologise for my cheekiness.
It's quite all right -- I have had two separate eminent editors of
English-language texts suggest I do not
Graydon,
2009/10/6 Graydon :
>
> Which is what I thought I was talking about.
Then I must apologise for my cheekiness.
I have also looked up what an "acyclic directed graph" is. :-)
Curiously, I have always thought of it in terms of it being like a
"food web", from my long gone days of biology
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:14:14AM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit:
> 2009/10/5 Graydon :
> > That "tree" is really an acyclic directed graph,
>
> I'm sorry, I think we belong to different tribes... :-)
Oh, quite possibly.
> > and because of the
> > one-and-only-one-path property of those graphs (there
2009/10/5 Graydon :
> That "tree" is really an acyclic directed graph,
I'm sorry, I think we belong to different tribes... :-)
> and because of the
> one-and-only-one-path property of those graphs (there is only one way to
> get to any node in the graph from the root of the tree), if you move
> "
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:26:40AM +0200, AlunFoto scripsit:
[snip]
> The important thing is this: when you re-import the keywords to LR,
> the program is bright enough to understand it if you add more leaves
> to a branch, or if you add another branch to the tree. But it does NOT
> understand it
Heh. Just looke through the thread in the archive, and apparently I'm
just repeating myself. :-(
Sorry about the wasted bandwidth.
Jostein
2009/10/5 AlunFoto :
> Boris,
> It's inside the catalog.
> What you ought to do is to export the keywords. THen you get a
> structured text file which you can
Boris,
It's inside the catalog.
What you ought to do is to export the keywords. THen you get a
structured text file which you can edit in a standard editor, and then
import back into LR afterwards.
There's one important thing you need to know, though, which I didn't
know myself when I wrote the be
Boris,
They're in the SQLite database (.LRCAT) file that Lightroom uses to do
its operations.
Muck with its internals at your own risk.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
> Jostein, do you also happen to know where LR2 stores the keywords it knows,
> as I'd like to play with i
Jostein, do you also happen to know where LR2 stores the keywords it
knows, as I'd like to play with it some having read your story below?
Boris
I never saw the LR1.
In v2, you can create a text file with a certain indented format, that
will import to LR as a hierarchy. It works like this:
A
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM, P. J. Alling
wrote:
>>
>> I can't think and spell at the same time. You've read my posts right.
>
> In case no one else does.
>
> MARK!
There should have been a :-) at then end my post.:-)
Dave
>
>
>
> David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM
From: Bob Sullivan
I've heard that the taboo on pork has some basis in fact.
In resource poor geographies, pigs compete with men for food sources.
It is better to raise animals that don't eat your food.
Regards, Bob S.
Might have something to do with trichinosis. Especially in a nomadic
deser
Not tape worms, round worms, much worse Trichinosis.
AlunFoto wrote:
I've always thought that parasites was the reason. Pigs and humans can
be infected by the same tapeworms...
Jostein
2009/9/12 Bob Sullivan :
I've heard that the taboo on pork has some basis in fact.
In resource poor geogra
I've always thought that parasites was the reason. Pigs and humans can
be infected by the same tapeworms...
Jostein
2009/9/12 Bob Sullivan :
> I've heard that the taboo on pork has some basis in fact.
> In resource poor geographies, pigs compete with men for food sources.
> It is better to raise a
I've heard that the taboo on pork has some basis in fact.
In resource poor geographies, pigs compete with men for food sources.
It is better to raise animals that don't eat your food.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:39 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2009/9/11 Bob W :
>> I don't think this is ne
I can't think and spell at the same time. You've read my posts right.
In case no one else does.
MARK!
David J Brooks wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Stan Halpin
wrote:
Worrying about spelling "mistakes" makes sense if you are sharing your
system, if your keywords matter to oth
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Chris Stoddart
wrote:
>
>> 2009/9/11 Bob W :
>> Why don't people eat badgers?
Because they taste like bloody albatross.
Dave
>
--
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada
--
ly
going to be opportunistic food at the best of times. That roadkill recipe
bloke that appears on telly from time-to-time - he's partial to a bit of
badger IIRC.
But on a serious note this has been a very useful thread to me. I'm
currently thinking about keywords in Lightroom myself and it
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Stan Halpin
wrote:
> Worrying about spelling "mistakes" makes sense if you are sharing your
> system, if your keywords matter to others (e.g., the buyer at a stock
> agency). As long as it is just for your benefit in organizing, consistency
> is all that matters.
2009/9/11 Bob W :
> I don't think this is necessarily a mistake in principle, and I don't think
> your example is a mistake at all. The problem lies in the way people
> (mis)use or misunderstand hierarchies. I recommend David Lorge Parnas's
> essay "On a 'buzzword': hierarchical structure".
Thanks
Worrying about spelling "mistakes" makes sense if you are sharing your
system, if your keywords matter to others (e.g., the buyer at a stock
agency). As long as it is just for your benefit in organizing,
consistency is all that matters. If a hoarse is a hoarse is a hoarse
every time you ind
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Bob W wrote:
> Be careful about spelling mistakes,
You gotta be kiding me.
Dave
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and fol
[...]
> In v2, you can create a text file with a certain indented
> format, that will import to LR as a hierarchy. It works like this:
>
[...]
>
That's very interesting - I didn't know you could do that.
> It gets the synonyms right too. :-) But if you create a new
> branch like "Hoofed anim
My key word work flow is pretty basic, and probably wrong, but:
I drag and drop the folder i want to open in LR and when the dialogue
box opens i insert the words i want, for example , the last folder
opened was of a family function, so, Simpson's, North Bay, 2009,
portraits.
That should help me
2009/9/10 Bob W :
> Who, what, where, why to begin with. No need for when because it's already
> in the metadata.
THat's the basic idea, yes. :-)
> LR 1 had a very useful way of setting up keyword taxonomies, but I think
> that got dropped somewhere along the line. It was useful because I could
>
I don't know if my method is the Best Practice, but here I go.
I have a hierarchical system, with three main groups of tags:
People, nature and genres. The number of levels varies.
Under People I have three subcategories: People, culture and activities.
Under People> People I have any people who
Thanks for responding, Godfrey!
I did do a bit of research before asking, and in line of my
professional work I also deal with Controlled Vocabularies. In the
latter case, however, there are international standards to relate to,
issued from the likes of ISO, HL7, ICH, CEN and so on. Not so for
Ligh
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Bob W wrote:
> Who, what, where, why to begin with. No need for when because it's already
> in the metadata.
>
> LR 1 had a very useful way of setting up keyword taxonomies, but I think
> that got dropped somewhere along the line. It was useful because I could
> j
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:00 AM, AlunFoto wrote:
> I'm currently looking into switching to Lightroom as my primary
> archiving tool, and am fascinated by the ease of applying keywords.
> However, I also realise that I'd like to stick to a *limited* list of
> keywords, and that the list better be c
> Guys 'n' Gals,
>
> I'm currently looking into switching to Lightroom as my
> primary archiving tool, and am fascinated by the ease of
> applying keywords.
> However, I also realise that I'd like to stick to a *limited*
> list of keywords, and that the list better be correct and updated.
>
>
Guys 'n' Gals,
I'm currently looking into switching to Lightroom as my primary
archiving tool, and am fascinated by the ease of applying keywords.
However, I also realise that I'd like to stick to a *limited* list of
keywords, and that the list better be correct and updated.
So I would like to re
45 matches
Mail list logo
