Don't image permanodes already have thumbnails attached? Presumably you
could expand the definition to point to  original version or subsequent
edits.

On 9 Aug 2016 3:57 pm, "Mathieu Lonjaret" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On 7 August 2016 at 07:03, Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Can you be more concrete? Which fields would be in file vs. "object"?
> >> Which fields currently in file do you feel are too specific?
> >
> >
> > See below.
> >
> >> Also, it's the permanode that gets tagged, not the file, yet in your
> >> second scenario you still have the permanode at the top referencing the
> same
> >> file. What does that get you?
> >
> >
> > Right, so I've become more familiar with the schema since I posted my
> > proposal. Currently, we tag the permanode not the file. But that doesn't
> > change my point (though it changes what I'm proposing). Currently have
> this
> > as the structure of any "image":
> >
> > permanode -> file -> parts (content)
> >
> > My concern is that we are tightly binding the abstract concept of an
> "image"
> > to the file-based representation. For example, the twitter importer
> creates
> > fake files to import images -- why is that necessary? A filesystem is
> just
> > one method of representing structure, and since that particular image
> didn't
> > come from a local filesystem then pretending that it should be treated
> like
> > a filesystem doesn't make sense IMO.
> >
> > So, here's what I would suggest:
> >
> > permanode -> file -> permanode [this is the "object"] -> parts (content)
> >
> > The point being that now you could create a new node that references the
> > "object" that is the image without referencing a file-based
> representation.
> > In addition, tagging would be done _on the image, not on the file-based
> > representation of the image.
> >
> > Also, RE: the tagging of the permanode, does the indexer correctly deal
> with
> > having two images with the *same content* but different file structure
> being
> > tagged? Do you have to double-tag the images because the files (and thus
> the
> > permanodes) are different? IMO this is something that could be solved
> inside
> > the *schema* (not in the indexer) by abstracting the file-based
> > representation
>
> I'm not sure now what you mean by tagging, but I feel obliged to
> emphasize that in the Camlistore model, the permanode is the
> representation of your object. It's the only entity that gets
> (mutable) attributes (through claims), which is why it is the one
> being tagged. So if you think the two images are different objects
> then you assign each of them to a different permanode, that you will
> both tag however you like. If not, then there's nothing to worry
> about, is there?
>
> >> Do you know that we have the "bytes" schema type, for referencing just a
> >> series of bytes, without permissions, filename, etc? Is that what you
> meant
> >> by "object"?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I saw that. And in fact, that means we could just make it like this
> > (reducing the amount of work):
> >
> > permanode -> file -> permanode [this is the "object"] -> bytes -> parts
> > (content)
> >
> > The only obvious concern would be that you'd have to make the indexer
> deal
> > with tags of the "object" propogating to the file-based representation
> (thus
> > meaning that tags are transitive). But maybe that wouldn't be necessary
> (we
> > could just display the images without pretending that they're files in
> the
> > webui, and the file-based view would only be useful for FUSE or things
> like
> > that).
> >
> > Does that make more sense?
> >
> > --
> > Aleksa Sarai
> > https://www.cyphar.com/
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Camlistore" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to [email protected].
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Camlistore" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Camlistore" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to