I am in agreement that it would be a bad thing to implement tags with a
level attribute i.e. first order tags. I agree with your point that it
makes their use harder for the user and its harder to do. Since no one
wants to implement them, I don't think I need to clarify why I think
they complicate the data model. (Well, I might but not now.)
When I wrote about categories vs tags, I had not read the proposal
flagged by Anil and was unaware of later plans to allow tags to define
the sub feeds to be available. Doing this would be neat but rather
undermines my argument that Categories will remain useful. i.e. I think
this is a good thing.
Elias Torres wrote:
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's very long and tedious signature block removed.
--
Dave
<http://www.sun.com> * David Levy *
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.
