Re: Show all tags in Albums? (Was: Terminology)

["Dotan Cohen" <dotancohen gmail com>]

On 19/09/06, Sam Barker <sam quadrocket co uk> wrote:
> This is possibly more relevant to terminology discussion, but I think a
> lot of the problems we are having with terminology stem from the fact
> that different people have a different ideas on what they expect a XXX
> to be.

Which is exactly why I started this thread. So that we are all
standing on common ground when we speak of XXX.

> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:47 +0200, Marcus Hast wrote:
> > On 9/19/06, Dotan Cohen <dotancohen gmail com> wrote:
> > > Also, if the default is to show all the tags, then what is the
> > > difference between tags and albums? The whole album effect could be
> > > gotten by creating a top-level tag called Albums and adding tags under
> > > it, each an album.
> >
> > The pictures belonging to an Album are ordered, pictures belonging to
> > a tag are not.
>
> As I see it a picture belongs to an album and a tag belongs to a
> picture, not the other way round. I think this distinction is
> fundamental. A tag is just an arbitrary piece of meta data, an album is
> some kind of container.

Also here, I agree with you. By that thinking, a picture could belong
to only one single album, which I happen to agree with. Hwoever, that
was frowned upon on the list. I personally like the idea.

> > Personally I think it would be a good idea if more meta information
> > could be added to an Album as well. Eg a description of the album and
> > things like that.
> >
> > It could be implemented similarly to a tag however.
> >
> I like the idea of having further information about an album, and I
> really see the benefit of having it as an ordered collection (it took me
> some thinking). If we go down the line of meta data about albums then
> why can't we tag them? (I'm not sure if it is a good idea as yet just
> putting it out there) I've seen people discussing using tags to mark
> photos for export, and I seem to remember that this sort of thing was
> frowned upon by Larry when done automatically (that could be me getting
> the wrong end of the stick).

I'm not sure that tagging albums is nessaccary. I think that it would
just add complexity. You've already got your pictures sorted into
albums, and they are tagged within the albums.

> For this is it worth having a second class of tag called a flag? The
> idea being that flags can be added to a photo but are not visible as
> tags, they would not appear in the list or with the photos.

Then just create a new top-level tag called Flags, and don't ever expand it!

Dotan Cohen