Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:

quoted text
> ~    5. If the system didn't plan for some major catagory it will be 
> crunched into a sub catagory(s) that do not make very much sense for 
> example under Library of Congress computer science is under math 
> (QA76.XXXX) but electronics is under TK510[456].XXXX

In this example the call number performs a dual function of identifier 
and grouping.  The ability to lookup the address in a computerized card 
catalog database mostly negates the weakness of the poor grouping. 
Because a computer can manage location and grouping in some other 
fashion, all we really need is a unique identifier.

quoted text
> A very good example all the items above is the current ports system.    
> In short the more finally cut we make our categories the harder it is 
> guess/generate the "search key" (either a real key or metaphorically a 
> mental picture of one).   For all the above reasons I would argue for 
> flatter hieracies with metahierachies overlayed for different purposes 
> then one typically sees today.

The idea of an overlay I think is a very powerful one.  The file system 
hierarchy could simply be one overlay that might be applied by a 
hypothetical storage manager. An author might use an author's overlay 
suitable to the author's task.  All user's would have to be careful to 
divorce that idea of "what" they are looking at from "where" they found 
it.  There would multiple disjoint locations in an overlay system that 
all refer to precisely the same resource.

Later,
Jason
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"