Relationships *are* a type of attribute. Various projects (TW Notes, Treeview) already use them to construct parent-child trees of information. Technically speaking, whether you use fields, tags, or slices probably makes little difference to performance. No part of TiddlyWiki creates a real indexed database structure. So its all string manipulation, no matter how you get at it. So mostly what matters is how easy it is to think about your usage of the data, and the existing tools to get at and manipulate that data. In the case of tags, there is already good user (tag field), internal (api), and external (plugin) supporting code, making it a natural for this kind of application.
Mark On Mar 3, 6:40 am, Saverio <saverio.mavig...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 8:15 am, "Mark S." <throa...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Tags are useful to show relationships (parent-child) between tiddlers, > > I think tags are ideal for "attributes" of tiddlers. To use them for > relationships, other than the simplest and most generic of > relationships, is stretching their functionality, unless you > supplement with your own code to disambiguate the type of > relationship. I think what is missing from TW is semantic tagging. Are > there any plans for a "semantic TiddlyWiki", just as Semantic > Mediawiki (http://semantic-mediawiki.org) extended vanilla Mediawiki? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To post to this group, send email to tiddlyw...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
