pcplantdb

[Richard Morris <webmaster@pfaf.org>]

Chad Knepp wrote:

> 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.  

Yep, indeed I'd go with an uncontroled vocabulary as well.
We can probably kick start the process by using the vocabulary in the 
data we've already got.

> What are others visions of relationships?  As in,
> what are they going to look like?  A word and list(s)?  A comment
> (plus lists)?

Keep it as simple as we can. Basically thinking of something like a 
wikiword, click on it and it take you to new page. New page could have 
some text plus links back to all pages which refere to it.

Does seem to imply we need to represent some non-plant things in database.


Rich