On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:19 AM, Steffen wrote:
On 07/02/2007, at 2.25, David Powers wrote:
On 2/6/07, Steffen stffn@dibidut.dk wrote:
And a suggestion: It might be good to debate here how the database should be designed to best do it job. Fx. would it be an idea to
make a set of (not necessarily disjunkt/non-intersecting) categories/ labels objects/libs could fit in - like math, audio, control,
graphic (inspired by http://puredata.info/dev/PdLibraries)? I mean, there must be a quite a few opinions on how the database could be
organized in order to be of most use.It would be nice if things could be "tagged" with keywords, rather than categorized. That way, there's no need to think of every
category or decide on all keywords in advance, people could add keywords to objects as they saw fit.I agree. That what i meant by 'not necessarily non-intersecting
categories'. It might be a bad choice to use the word "category"
like that - I'm sorry.But it was mostly meant as an example of an idea we could want in
such database. Since I0 said:"help with database-design [...] might be appreciated"
I thought we (the potential users of the database) in this phase
could brainstorm and discuss ideas on how we would like it.
I think this should be generated from the meta data in the help
files. For PDDP, we plan on using the help files as the central
location for meta data.
.hc
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!