two or three other arguments to keep that main base of help/object data outside of the pd helppatches: when we keep all data about objects in a central database then editing could be done online, probably with undo function, popdown menus, free tagging would be easier, because you can query all existing tags. SEARCHEABLE!!! it is so much easier to search on a page than in a patch. marius.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Feb 6, 2007, at 8:25 PM, 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.
Yeah, that's the idea. Though there isn't really a way to do a user- generated taxonomy, only a developer generated taxonomy. Really, it would be generated by who ever writes the help patches.
.hc
~David
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously. - Benjamin Franklin
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list