This is my rant, I'm mostly new here and have been monitoring some of the discussions, but since I am relatively new please excuse any ignorance on my part.
I see a number of arguements about metadata, and mappings and keys. All of which is data itself, and all of which is descriptive and will only be readable by certain clients. So I'm not sure how much freenet itself needs to have this kind of information, couldn't freenet simply be associative/relational, in that way handle the most basic form of mapping and let clients extend it by controling how mapping is used. Well, look at data on its most basic form. In its most basic form it is composed of bits, these bits are tightly related to produce centralized block types like bytes words dwords et cetera. These in turn are related in a higher form by describing each other, like 2 words describing the dimensions (width and height) of an array, or a dword describing what kind of data it is, even the name of a file is a description of the data itself. Then there is even another layer higher then this, that is that a file may be related to other files, like an html file that links to some images, or hierarchal directories that show files right next to each other. Between the relationships is a type of relationship, the type of relationship is description, one piece of data describes another. Even the bits of a pixel in an image describes what color intensity to display at a particular location, or the bits of an sample in an audio stream describe what kind of position of a vibratiing speaker should be in at a particular time. But lets look at the current types of relationships/mappings, like the heirarchal file systems. The reason why it was used was because it was simple and fast to use, but organization is horrible, for how do you catagorize things in a hierarchy in an universe (that is virtual universe) with infinite possibilities? You can't, you have to simply decide and hope you remember your decision so that you may access it again, this is not an bad problem since you are more likely to remember what you use often and then search for things you do not use often, that is a part of focus. In focus if I play a lot of video games, then my mental focus will be how to start a game, what folders and directories (or where in the start bar) is the game. But anyway, if I download a game, and I have a folder for downloads and a folder for games, where is the best place to put it... download/games/, or games/download/? I would say what ever is easier for you to remember, or that your focus resides, if I constantantly access the games directory I more then likely will create a download directory specificly for games only. (BTW I think that is a good name for such a browser, focus), but I'm not sure how necesary it would be to look at things like that, it may be better off to have the game appear both in downloads and in games, and combinations of the 2, but to have it that more likely it will end up at the top of the list under games and at the bottom of the list on downloads (kind of like the human language where "quake game" may point you to games about earth quakes and "game quake" will point you toward id softwares Quake games), or it may not matter at all. This would produce a lot of overhead though, I would think because somewhere the directory names would have to be associated with those files, and instead of a file only being in one directory it would be linked to by many directories. Anyway enough for now... _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
