> The only problem are people who should appear in more than > one "context" > (like a workmate with whom we worked in more than one place). > In such a > situation we have to choose one context over another or make > "category > reference" (supported by some software packages) so that we > have a link > to one category from several contexts.
This is precisely the problem with any hierarchical organisation imposed on non-hierarchical subject matter, and the reason why they so often fail. You also chose an example - genetic relationships - that is well-suited to a tree structure, so it looks as though it would work for all subject matter. Unfortunately for you it won't. Given that people have computers to play with, the most convenient and easiest approach is to assign keywords to the photograph and use them as the basis for searching and filtering. It's very easy and you won't disappear up your own fundament as you will with a hierarchical structure. Without wishing to mention a specific software solution (called Lightroom), you can add a bit if hierarchy if it's useful and necessary to your keywords using child/parent relationships. For example, I have one for places such as Greenwich < London < UK. The London set also includes other boroughs, so I can easily find all photos taken in London, but I label the picture with the lowest thing in the tree. So if I label something as 'South Bank' it automatically includes London and UK. I do try to be careful not to set these things up for subject matter which is not really hierarchical. -- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Pawel Bartuzi > Sent: 28 September 2007 18:57 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Organizational Software - inverted tree attitude > > Leaving specific software solution aside and talking about image > organization I would like to recommend an "inverted-tree" > structure for > people categories - it is especially neat for categorizing > family photos > and I know it can be done in IMatch and probably in other software > packages, too. Of course, please excuse me if what I am > writing about is > well-known and was discussed before. > > The idea behing the "inverted-tree" is to build "paths" to family > members and acquintances. We start with a simple structure > like that below: > > Family > -me > -my wife > -our child1 > -our child2 > > Then, we start expanding it in a way that for every member of > family we > add his or her parents, brothers, sisters and husbands/wives directly > "under" him (except the family member which serves as a "path" to the > member and is already "above" him in the tree): > > Family > -me > --my mother > --my father > --my brother > --my sister > -my wife > --her mother > --her father > --her sister > -our child1 > -our child2 > > Here, my side of family expanded further (just note the actual family > structure is completely artificial and invented just as an > example; also > in real database we would use people's real names of course): > > Family > -me > --my mother > --my father > ---his mother > ---his father > ---his sister > ----her husband > -----his mother > -----his father > -----his brother > ----her child1 > ----her child2 > --my brother > ---his first wife > ----her second husband > ----her child with second husband > ---his second wife > ----her mother > ----her father > ---his child1 > --my sister > ---her husband > ---her child1 > ---her chil2 > > That way categories containing photos of my grandfathers > would be "me\my > father\her father" or "me\my mother\her father" and category > containing > photos of my sister's husband would be "me\my sister\her husband". > > This attitude has two great advantages: 1) repeating names are not a > problem, 2) it is very easy to group people by family side or > groups as > we relate to them in real life (for example, my side of > family is "me" > category with all the subcategories, my sister husband's family is > "me\my sister\her husband" and all subcategories). > > Inverted-tree attitude is easily expanded to workmates, > colleagues and > acquintances, people we got to know during holidays etc. where we can > initially group people by where we got to know them: > > Our buddies > -me > --my workplace1 > ---Steve > ----Steve's first wife > ----Steve's second wife > -----Steve's second wife child from her other marriage > ----Steve's child > ---John > --my workplace2 > --my holidays 2007 > -our child1 > --his primary school > --his judo trainings > ---John > ----John parents > > General idea is to put people into tree by "paths" - that way if we > think about "Steve's second wife child from her other > marriage" more in > context of Steve's wife we put the son under the wife; should > we think > about the wife's son in context of Steve we would put the son > under "Steve". > > The only problem are people who should appear in more than > one "context" > (like a workmate with whom we worked in more than one place). > In such a > situation we have to choose one context over another or make > "category > reference" (supported by some software packages) so that we > have a link > to one category from several contexts. > > Please excuse the long post. I wonder if anybody have read it all. :-) > > Pawel > > > > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > A big thanks to all who have offered information and advice on this > > subject. A fair number indicated Lightroom as a possible > solution. I > > have used Lightroom a bit and I think that for my wife, all > the extra > > capabilities are going to be a bit daunting for her - there > is so much > > extra UI hanging around to confuse her. > > > > Since IMatch has a 30 day trial and sounds much like what I > am looking > > for, I think I'll give it a try and see how she does with > it. If that > > works out well, then we are on to the hard part (categorizing and > > organizing). If she ends up not liking it, perhaps I'll > have her take > > a look at Lightroom. > > > > Again, thanks for your responses. > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > ______________ > Czas wybrac dobra nazwe! > www.nazwa.pl > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above and follow the directions. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
