3 ms·
That iTunes view is still a hierarchy, though. More accurately, it's still a DAG. The hierarchy is not the problem here, it's the rigidity of trying to put some
by stormbrew 10y ago
That iTunes view is still a hierarchy, though. More accurately, it's still a DAG. The hierarchy is not the problem here, it's the rigidity of trying to put something in only one part of that hierarchy.
- andrewflnr 10y agoTags are still a DAG, too. I don't see what you're trying to prove here.
- zaphar 10y agoTags are unordered sets that can be viewed in a DAG format if desired. Tag's themselves do not specify a DAG though.
- ozim 10y agoSpot on, for file system now it should not be a problem to have links in different places in hierarchy. You can have "favoriteSong.mp3" in catalogue with artist name and use links to put it in catalogue with "ultimate super songs". But I think people are not aware of possibilities.
- neohaven 10y agoIt's multiple, interwoven hierarchies, which you can look at by "seeing" a particular DAG (a subset of the actual graph). You can see this twin representation conceptually as Artist->Album->Song and also as Compilation->Artist->Song, the latter being a small folder with symlinks to the actual song directly. It's really just two different trees.