Ilmari Karonen wrote:
> (While thinking about this, I thought back to an earlier discussion on
> this list (or possibly wikien-l, can't remember now) about the fact that
> there are essentially two types of categories: thematic and taxonomic.
> For the former, the "tag" model of atomic categoriz
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> Because adding the parents produces non-sense results because
> "categorization" is a flawed concept except at the most fuzzy and
> course levels: Reality doesn't fit into neat nested boxes (not even
> the N-dimensional ones created by multiple parentage). The two
> prim
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Platonides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we're going to end up with hundreds of categories on each page, why
> not make the software automatically add all parent categories?
> It would fill the categorylinks table*, but it would as well by manually
> adding them.
>
David Gerard wrote:
> 2008/12/4 Tim Landscheidt:
>
>> Add to that the maintenance costs because you would want to
>> ensure that if someone who is not aware of the concept of
>> atomic categories adds a [[Category:Manhattan]] to something
>> he adds [[Category:New York]], [[Category:East Coast of
2008/12/4 Aryeh Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> With a JS hack I had my tool integrated to the site. The AJAX calls
>> went to the toolserver, but as far as the users could see it was
>> running on the site. No one cared:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Daniel Schwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uhm, yeah.. except that intersection of atomic categories are not vaporware.
> We had proofs of concept for that and the interest was marginal.
Vaporware with proofs of concept is still vaporware. The definition
of vaporwa
2008/12/4 Tim Landscheidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Add to that the maintenance costs because you would want to
> ensure that if someone who is not aware of the concept of
> atomic categories adds a [[Category:Manhattan]] to something
> he adds [[Category:New York]], [[Category:East Coast of the
> Un
"Aryeh Gregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'd like for you to be right. But switching from the present category system
>> to atomic categories is not as straight forward as having a few bots run over
>> all existing cats.
> Of course, humans would have to manually specify which new categories
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The last time will be when there's a feature end-users can use without
>> going off to the toolserver.
>
> With a JS hack I had my tool integrated to the site. The AJAX calls
> went to the toolserve
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> With a JS hack I had my tool integrated to the site. The AJAX calls
> went to the toolserver, but as far as the users could see it was
> running on the site. No one cared: It didn't produce useful results
> because of how categories are used, and when I suggested changin
2008/12/4 Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The last time will be when there's a feature end-users can use without
>> going off to the toolserver.
> With a JS hack I had my tool integrated to the site. The AJAX calls
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:12 PM, David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The last time will be when there's a feature end-users can use without
> going off to the toolserver.
With a JS hack I had my tool integrated to the site. The AJAX calls
went to the toolserver, but as far as the users could
2008/12/4 Daniel Schwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> how things are categorized. As long as category intersections remain
>> vaporware, there's no incentive to change. A technical fait accompli
>> will bring about change.
> Uhm, yeah.. except that intersection of atomic categories are not vaporware.
> how things are categorized. As long as category intersections remain
> vaporware, there's no incentive to change. A technical fait accompli
> will bring about change.
Uhm, yeah.. except that intersection of atomic categories are not vaporware.
We had proofs of concept for that and the interes
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Daniel Schwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd like for you to be right. But switching from the present category system
> to atomic categories is not as straight forward as having a few bots run over
> all existing cats.
Of course, humans would have to manually spe
> the other useful technical innovations that get introduced. All it
> would take is running some bots for a while to switch to the better
> system, not a big cost for a large wiki like Commons with plenty of
> bot operators.
I'd like for you to be right. But switching from the present category s
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Roan Kattouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Without addressing Commons in particular, having an efficient way to get
> pages in the intersection of multiple categories would allow wikis to
> delete a category such as [[Category:Deceased Presidents of the United
> Stat
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Daniel Schwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So how does this take care of deep indexing non-atomic categories?
> =>How will this extension be even remotely useful for let's say commons?
That's a social problem, and so of secondary importance. Once a
technical mecha
Daniel Schwen schreef:
>> We had a pretty lengthy discussion about this before the summer, and the
>> consensus seemed to be that a fulltext-based approach looked most
>> viable.
>>
>
> So how does this take care of deep indexing non-atomic categories?
>
Err.. what? Please explain what you
2008/12/3 Daniel Schwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm sure this thread will die out soon.
> Half of the participants will again be soothed by the promise of some easy
> solution just barely beyond the horizon, while the half that realizes that
> said solution _cannot possibly work_ without a radical
> We had a pretty lengthy discussion about this before the summer, and the
> consensus seemed to be that a fulltext-based approach looked most
> viable.
So how does this take care of deep indexing non-atomic categories?
=>How will this extension be even remotely useful for let's say commons?
Thi
We had a pretty lengthy discussion about this before the summer, and the
consensus seemed to be that a fulltext-based approach looked most
viable. I actually wrote an extension that does that, and promised to
release it soon; that was quite a few months ago, and I never got around
to it. I'll r
22 matches
Mail list logo
