Hi Jean , "project" field/tag. What I call "project" is very broad, and I have up to > 30 or 40 to manage/follow. So basically I can use a tag per project, and > tag these tags with a "project" tag to avoid a complete mess. As projects > come and go, I'll probably have lots of them after a while. A little bit > scary in my opinion. >
Projects sure are high-level tiddler candidates! Here's how I would manage those... Tag: *Projects* ...with project status tags tagging to it, e.g. *$active*, *$someday*, *$**maybe*, *$finished* and then actual projects tagging to those project status tags. In tbGTD <http://tbgtd.tiddlyspot.com> there are equivalent task- or action-status tags, e.g. *#next*, *#waiting*, *#future*, *#done* tagging to a tiddler called *Actions* and then your actual "action tiddlers" tagging to those action-status-tags. "organization" field/tag. I'd like to put all my contacts in TW5, and they > all belong to one or more organization. Having tiddlers for each and every > organization is ok, but having tags for each and every of them may end up > having tons of them after a while. I'd prefer to use fields for each > contact that refers to their organization(s) > Organisations or *Networks* sure are prominent tiddler candidates! I am thinking that especially with a lot of orgs you will definitely have network information on top of contact information. You could apply the same prefix style, e.g. having a tag *Networks*, with network types tagging to it, e.g. *&Partner*, *&Supplier*, *&Customer*, etc... and then different organisations tagging to those network types. This will allow you to easily list orgs by different types, even contacts with a given "contact-role" for orgs of a given type. Again, I would make "contact-roles" tiddlers, because a single contact can assume more than one role. Of course, you could just as well use a select-box at organisation-tiddlers so as to select a network-type... but then you could not have an organisation that is both a *&Partner* and *&Supplier*... unless you had one "checkbox-field" per network-type... assuming that we'll have checkbox fields at some point. Maybe I'm reluctant because I'm ignorant of some practices or ways to > organize TW5 tiddlers. Maybe having hundreds of tags is by no way an issue. > I don't think it is an issue, to the contrary. For example, it makes search much easier. For example, try searching $, #, & ...catch my drift? Do you have any experience regarding tags vs. fields TW5 organization ? > What were your conclusions ? > As you said yourself, tags are a lot more accessible (now)... which is something that necessarily needs to be that way, as you can add your own custom viewtemplate sections <http://tb5.tiddlyspot.com/#Conditional%20ViewTemplate%20Section> displaying dedicated field-information depending on filter criteria. Is hundred of tags maintainable, and are their some tricks to make this > easy ? > Why wouldn't it be? To me, the trick is to use a smart tagging-hierarchy as indicated above. What are fields' future ? Is there a will to make them more > important/usable or not ? > Just as I hoped they would be in TWc, I hope they will become *much* smarter in TW5. I would like to see typed fields <https://developer.salesforce.com/page/An_Introduction_to_Force_Database>, e.g. string, number, check, select, radio... etc... as well as an ability to define fieldsets that you can associate with filter expressions corresponding to the tiddlers for which you wish to display a given field or fieldset. Best wishes, Tobias. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
