Hi Alberto, > Tags have no semantic meaning, or they all share the same meaning. I > needed tags to categorize, others meaning "written by", or "about", or > "related to", etc., and you cannot do that with tags. For instance, if you > have a tiddler for a book, and you tag it "William Shakespeare", it could > mean that it is written by him, or that it talks about him, or it's related > to him, etc. >
That is something I have pondered about for a long time. A simple tag (aka keyword) simply is not good enough for so many usecases. Instead, what you want is a qualified tag that expresses both something to relate to AND the type of relation, encoded in one "semantic" tagging relation, that could be expressed by something like "my tag++relation y"... whereas the ui would actually allow you to explore this relation in a number of ways, e.g. 1. all with *tag* AND *relation* 2. all only with *tag* 3. all only with *relation* ...and allow for a wide range of more fine-grained queries against a tiddler store. So, perhaps, it's time to introduce a new layer of connecting tidbits, aka "relations"... and to seprate them, if not eventually mingle them with tags in the above tag++relation type of manner. Of course, just as tags are first class citizens, so should relations be. Best wishes, Tobias. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to tiddlywiki@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
