On 1/6/06, David Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am firmly of the view that tags should be a seperate object to categories. > > Firstly categories define sub feeds, i.e. readers can subscribe to > categories I don't envisage them being able to subscribe to tag filters, > apart from which the weight of interest in a users tags will change as > the users & their readers views & interests change.
As Anil pointed out, I don't see why is it wrong to offer subfeeds based on tags. We must keep in mind one of the reasons for tagging success. The barriers of entry are very low for tagging and the stress to figure out the First Order category (only one) for an entry are too high and in my mind annoying. > > In short, C 12m A, A m2m T, therefore C m2mT - this means that using > tags readers can query for content across Categories. (Hope this makes > sense, "12m", 1 to many, m2m "many 2 many"). > > In my blog article about del.icio.us (you didn't tell me off last time > so), > > http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/DaveLevy?entry=why_aren_t_you_using > > I explore the relationship between tags & bundles and come to the > conclusion that first order tags exist (at least in my mind). The > problem with attempting to merge first order tags in a tagging > infrastructure is that we may lose the network (m2m) relationship > between tags. We will complicate the code. My answer at delicious is to Could you define more the relationship between tags and how do we lose the network if we only used tags? Also, maybe expand on how the code gets complicated. From the Roller perspective we can only see a simplification if we were to remove all code that has to deal with categories and only deals with tags which are much more flexible. > ensure that I know which of my Tags are first order and to personally > enforce the "Each article must have at least one First Order tag". > > I expect to publish my views (at greater length) on my blog. > > Having just joined the alias, I'm not sure about voting on timescales, > but more time to get it right; I have just joined is best for me. > > Elias Torres wrote: > > >I'm ok with option 1 as well. > > > >Regards, > > > >Elias > > > >On 1/5/06, David M Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>The proposal looks pretty simple and straight-forward to me. I assume > >>that you have chosen the "Leave categories alone and simply add > >>tagging support" option, is that true? > >> > >>Is there enough information in this proposal for us to OK committing > >>this to SVN? > >> > >>Should 1) we wait until 2.1 is done, 2) create a branch for it now or > >>3) try to get it in 2.1? > >> > >> From my point-of-view, option #1 is the low-pressure and easy way to > >>go. > >> > >>BTW, our proposed code-freeze for 2.1 is Thursday Jan. 19th. > >> > >>- Dave > >> > >> > >> > >>On Jan 4, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Elias Torres wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>I've updated Allen's proposal for WeblogTags with some details as per > >>>our IBM internal implementation. I would love it if several of you > >>>gave it another look and commented on how we should proceed with it. > >>>We have plenty of code to turn this around really quickly, but would > >>>need your approval first. Once you give it a go, just tell me which > >>>branch to start editing and I'll get to work. I'm still on vacation, > >>>so this would be the best time for me to do this before I get back on > >>>the crazy schedule of work/school life. > >>> > >>>http://rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=Proposal_WeblogTags > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>> > >>>Elias > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > -- > > Dave > > <http://www.sun.com> * David Levy * > *Sun Microsystems Ltd.* > 55, King William St., > London EC4R 9ND United Kingdom > > Phone +44 (0) 20 7469 9908/x18308 > Mobile +44 (0) 7710-360922 > Blog http://blogs.sun.com/DaveLevy > Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sun Proprietary & Confidential . This e-mail message is for the sole use > of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and > privilidged information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recepient, > please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the > original message. > >
