On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 07:37:35AM -0700, Steven H. Rogers wrote:
> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> > Eric Hanchrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>I wonder if it might be ... interesting ... to try tagging packages,
> >>rather than categorizing them. Since tagging is all the rage on the
> >
> >
> > Indeed. The exercise of putting together a category hierarchy, the
> > feedback I have received, and just a couple of decades of research on
> > object-oriented design, have convinced me of its inflexibility. An
> > extensible set of tags is a better approach.
> >
> > I will discuss with Marc whether LinkIt can be modified to support
> > tags, and report back here. Stay tuned.
> >
>
> Tags are more flexible than a strictly hierarchy of categories, but some
> organization will provide a consistent framework. A data dictionary
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dictionary), perhaps on linkit or a wiki
> would help. This has maintenance issues of its own, but should be easier to
> manage than hierarchical categories.
I'll add my vote for the use of tags and note, obviously, that tags
neither preclude nor conflict with hierarchies.
If one thinks of tags as names for sets, then a hierarchy can be
thought of as a query specifying the intersection of particular
sets. Thus, tags provide a means of implementing search *and*
hierarchical navigation.
For example, the following branch of Paolo's draft hierarchy:
Root
Development
Documentation
is just one representation of the intersection of the three sets
(tags):
Root
Development
Documentation
So, in the case of a hierarchical menu of links on a web page, the
hierarchy is simply one sequence of tags that the user can follow
to narrow her search for content.
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster
Shared Logic Inc.
_______________________________________________
Gardeners mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
