[Pmwiki-users] Re: Re: Why heirarchy?

[chr@home.se]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:

> [1] In reality these probably wouldn't be groups, but rather pages
>     within a group (and the group provides the context). For instance,
>     Linux.Hardware versus Military.Hardware. If you find that page
>     *within* a group needs to be used in 2 places with different
>     meanings then the page name is probably too general.

What is wrong with having a page name that is "general"?

I like having short and concise names for things, even though that 
often means it might have multiple meanings. To take care of that I'd like 
the context to clarify what we are talking about.

> [2] It's a mistake to think of page names (as expressed in URLs) as
>     being hierarchical in nature anyway. http://.../foo bears absolutely
>     no relation to http://.../foo/bar *except* in the case where there's
>     a mapping from URLs to a filesystem (or similar). Granted that's
>     a common case, but there's nothing that requires it.

I actually don't think of them as a hierachy, but as a specification or 
access mechanism. For instance by specifying topics in descending scale:

	major topic -> smaller topic -> fine grained topic

In my mind, http://.../foo is related to http://.../foo/bar because I 
*want* the page 'bar' to be subtopic of 'foo'.

OTOH, I don't necessarily want a one-to-one mapping here. I'd be really
happy if I could also have: http://.../fud/bar refer to 'bar' (albeit
under a different name).

/Christian

-- 
Christian Ridderstr?m, +46-8-768 39 44               http://www.md.kth.se/~chr