Yes, its a more "modern" way of sorting. It solves some of the problems of trying to group large amounts of text in a spreadsheet.
d On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dingo, > Thanks for the thought. I actually had to Google Tags to be sure I > understood what you were suggesting. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata) > > I think this is what we are are trying to do with the search terms --come > up with a group list of tags. More of an official collaborative tag list > than a free-for-all. It appears from the wikipedia entry that > this concept has taken on a new scope that I was oblivious to. > > Were you thinking of something more than this? > > BTW, I have trimmed this message because the really old parts were no > longer readable so don't delete all the old messages before this one. > > BR, > Dennis > > > > On Aug 31, 2008, at 2:33 PM, dingo wrote: > > The use of "tags" is a nice alternative. But you'll need a way to employ > them. > > d > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I have given some thought about different ways a Glossary could be >> used. The straight alphabetic listing, and the search terms have >> already been discussed. However, another one would be the ability to >> sort the list based on different sort criteria. For instance the >> official Amibroker functions list has two way to view it, either >> alphabetic or by functional category. I find both useful at different >> times. However, many times, I would like to have some additional >> functional categories, and we will be adding new categories that are >> not just functions to the Glossary. >> >> It seems to me that we need to have "columns" that represent other >> sort categories in addition to a column for search terms. >> >> Name, Description, AB min version#, Main Category, Sub Category, Alt >> Category, related Names, search terms >> >> It is easy to generate the list with just commas for columns and >> spaces for multiple terms. Although tabs for columns and commas for >> multiple terms is an option, it does not make the text version as >> readable. >> >> It would be easy to do this in a spread sheet format or a table >> format. The real trick would be to display the list formatted based >> on the criteria without having to display everything. Trivial to do >> with a program, but I am not sure how this could be done on the UKB >> other than presorting it all the different ways and displaying them >> all. Of course that makes for a lot more work to update the UKB entry. >> >> Of course, now we would need a list of categories to use. >> >> I would like to hear other thoughts or suggestions about this. >> >> Best regards, >> Dennis >> >> On Aug 30, 2008, at 11:49 PM, Dennis Brown wrote: >> >> > Hi reinsley, >> > >> > You have a good suggestion. Once we get the basic list together, if >> > someone wants to add a new item it would certainly be appropriate to >> > bring it up in this thread for now. That way it could be defined >> > right on the spot and then added to the Glossary. I doubt the >> > Glossary will be ably to be modified directly by anyone except the >> > owner of the post once it goes into the UKB. We would need a Wiki >> > type database to be able to do collaborative editing. A master list >> > should be available in one place in any case so someone else could use >> > it locally for searches in some other context. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > >> > On Aug 30, 2008, at 1:26 PM, reinsley wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Hello Dennis >> >> >> >> The glossary is a cornerstone. Great idea ! >> >> >> >> I suggest to keep a place for acronyms. >> >> >> >> Maybe as a way of doing to add entries, somebody that does not know >> >> the meaning of a word or of a functionnality could add the word in >> >> the >> >> list. >> >> Later an advanced user will feel free to add pedagogical >> >> explanations. >> >> Or many users will fill out the entrie. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> >> >> --- In [email protected], Dennis Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Keith, >> >>> >> >>> Here is what I would suggest. We only work on the first 10 items >> >>> collaboratively on-line here to start. We need to get good exposure >> >>> for this initially to get lots of good ideas from the list. >> >>> >> >>> I will be happy to keep a text file of all the changes and upload it >> >>> to the files section if needed and attach it to the post at each >> >>> logical round of changes. Of course anyone can attach a text file >> >>> to >> >>> the email version of this post which I and anyone who uses the email >> >>> option will get. >> >>> >> >>> Lets leave the formatting out until we get a round of feedback on >> >>> that. The first 10 should stimulate ideas for how we should format >> >>> the entries to make them most useful. >> >>> >> >>> Some initial discussion will help solidify the overall specs of the >> >>> final format. >> >>> >> >>> Tuzo and Mike, >> >>> >> >>> You suggested using Google docs to make a collaborative effort more >> >>> efficient. I like the idea if this was an independent project >> >>> with a >> >>> dedicated team. However, there are some things beyond just the end >> >>> result to accomplish here. >> >>> >> >>> 1. I would like to have this collaborative effort done in full view >> >>> of the community and the watchful eye of Tomasz. This is somewhat >> >>> of >> >>> an experiment and it can serve as a model to inspire future >> >>> community >> >>> wide collaboration on other projects with a wide benefit. If there >> >>> is >> >>> awkwardness, let's see if we can work around it, or demonstrate a >> >>> need >> >>> for additional ways for the community to interact productively. Of >> >>> course it would work better in a PHP Forum environment, but lets >> >>> work >> >>> with what we have now. >> >>> >> >>> 2. Suggestions should come from anyone. Even if they only want to >> >>> participate for just a single entry on the whole project. Having >> >>> too >> >>> much hidden away (out of site, out of mind) would deprive the >> >>> project >> >>> of good input. >> >>> >> >>> 3. EVERYONE will benefit from seeing each and every AFL or general >> >>> AmiBroker term defined in front of them again. Think of it as an >> >>> opportunity for new and old to review all the things available and >> >>> what they are good for. >> >>> >> >>> I am not the worlds greatest organizer, and I may have a tendency to >> >>> have my eye on the moon while seeing how high I can jump. I you >> >>> think >> >>> I am wrong about this approach (I acknowledge it is a bit awkward) >> >>> speak up and let's find a better way. :) >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> Dennis >> >>> >> >>> On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:07 AM, Keith McCombs wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Sounds good to me. >> >>>> >> >>>> However, is there somewhere we could have a document that we could >> >>>> all collaborate on without the text getting all garbled up by >> >>>> Yahoogroups, adding carriage returns, line feeds, and >? I believe >> >>>> there is some way to do this -- just don't know what that way is. >> >>>> >> >> >
