4 ms·
Tagging, seems like a solution. But isn't. Specific problems with tagging: - Need to tag every file (whereas in folders, you just navigate to the folder and ev
by nobrains 4y ago
Tagging, seems like a solution. But isn't.
Specific problems with tagging:
- Need to tag every file (whereas in folders, you just navigate to the folder and everything you store there is in that folder)
- Takes too long
- Too much thinking overhead (at the time of storing)
- To be effective have to enter the name for all tag entries (e.g. project, type, etc.). If anything is missed for a file, that file will never be found.
- You have to remember what tag categories (e.g. project, type, etc.) you have used. If you don't use in 3 months, now you have forgotten.
- You have to remember the enumeration you are using for some tag categories (e.g. for type you might decide to use only photo, video and music. Now you have to remember that. You also have to remember its "photo" not "image")
- If tags were the solution, they would have already been used everywhere. The tagging system SEEMS like a good solution, but once you go deeper, it just doesn't work.
- PaulHoule 4y agoFor one thing you can train a model that will tag the same way you do.
- flanked-evergl 4y agoIf you tag using RDF[1] and use OWL[2] to define both the tag name and values then it really works pretty well. And with some entailment rules[3] you can even define rules that tags on folders becomes tags on items inside them, or you can just solve this with a bit more complex SPARQL query [4][5]. For an example of where such a system is used, see: - WikiData[6]: They use RDF but they don't use OWL, they have a similar though less formal way of defining types, and then entailment has to be encoded in SPARQL queries. - schema.org[7]: Uses RDF and also provide OWL specifications. [1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/ https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/ [2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/ https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/ [3]: https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#entailment-rules-informative https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-mt/#entailment-rules-informative [4]: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/... [5]: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples/advanced https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/... [6]: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page [7]: https://schema.org/ https://schema.org/
- PaulHoule 4y agoWhat I realized the other day is that the property restrictions in OWL are a lot like the options you see on a typical search interface, say, https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/ipoll/ https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/ipoll/ It is hidden in plain site, for instance if you read this https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Restriction https://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Restriction you might not realized that there are some other axioms documented elsewhere in the standard that let you query on "less than", "greater than", "matches a regex", etc. Instead of fighting with Protege or writing turtle you should be able to compose queries out of restrictions plus complements, unions and intersections the way you snap together a program in Scratch, but somehow the idea that OWL works as a query language (logically define a class in terms of its properties) had eluded people completely.
- bambax 4y agoMaybe automatic tagging with the help of some kind of AI would work?
- MilStdJunkie 4y agoDoesn't even need to be AI. I've done something very similar to this with text mining, regex, and some xquery/shell. The biggest problem, though, is convincing people that taxonomy doesn't belong in filenames, but that's built in to specifications. Kind of a brick wall, that.