pcplantdb

[Chad Knepp <pyg@galatea.org>]

Bear K writes:
 > Hi Rich,
 > 
 > Yeah, I read the Many-2-Many blog and that concept just came up. I was  
 > actually wondering how a loose tagging system for plants would work,  
 > and whether it would be effective. It might not be the best for the  
 > primary info on a plant, but might make an interesting addition to make  
 > browsing more interesting (a la del.ico.us). There'd have to be a  
 > reason for people to use it and add tags, something they get back in  
 > return to make it very effective.

I finally read the article.  Very interesting.  I actually think this
is pretty applicable to our implementation of relationships, in
particular if we go with controlled or uncontrolled 'vocabulary' of
relationships.  My view of relationships in the context of the project
is that they are in essence meta-data or tags, but contain more
information and 'tag'/relate multiple elements.  

I think it is going to be difficult to think up all the possible
relationships in advance unless they are fairly simple gradations from
good to neutral to bad.  My initial inclination is to go the
uncontrolled route.  What are others visions of relationships?  As in,
what are they going to look like?  A word and list(s)?  A comment
(plus lists)?

 > Cheers,
 > Bear
 > 
 > On Tuesday, January 4, 2005, at 08:57  AM, Richard Morris wrote:
 > 
 > > Interesing article on mentioned in slashdot
 > > about grassroots calsification schemes.
 > > http://www.adammathes.com/academic/computer-mediated-communication/ 
 > > folksonomies.html
 > >
 > > It looks at the difference between central controlled vocabularies
 > > and more anarchic systems.
 > >
 > > Well worth a read.


-- 
Chad Knepp
python -c 'import base64;print base64.decodestring("cHlnQGdhbGF0ZWEub3Jn")'