I'm presently discussing into it.source an idea to use categories in a new way, with an "ontology-like" approach that allows a much more effective use of +incategory (category intersection) and multi-axial categorization. As a pathologist, I'd like to test this approach in [[Category:Pathology]] and [[Category:Histopathology]] fields, merging them. Nothing will be changed, but creation of a limited number of new "keyword-like" categories, with some simple tranclusion trick inside their code, and use of them into image pages, nor there's any need of any extension or special code.
My question is: have I to discuss here a little more this project, or is it better to implement boldly a limited example of my idea, to discuss it on with a running example?
I posted into a Commons user sandbox: User:Alex brollo/O_Categories a more detailed talk about novel use of self-transcluding categories. . I'd like to have a try into Commons, but I need some feedback from you. I don't want to waste Commons Category: namespace without a sound reason. ;-)
Alex
2009/5/14 Alex Brollo alex.brollo@gmail.com
I'm presently discussing into it.source an idea to use categories in a new way, with an "ontology-like" approach that allows a much more effective use of +incategory (category intersection) and multi-axial categorization. As a pathologist, I'd like to test this approach in [[Category:Pathology]] and [[Category:Histopathology]] fields, merging them. Nothing will be changed, but creation of a limited number of new "keyword-like" categories, with some simple tranclusion trick inside their code, and use of them into image pages, nor there's any need of any extension or special code.
My question is: have I to discuss here a little more this project, or is it better to implement boldly a limited example of my idea, to discuss it on with a running example?
-- Alex
I posted into a Commons user sandbox: User:Alex brollo/O_Categories a more detailed talk about novel use of self-transcluding categories. . I'd like
Ok, how is that not pretty much exactly the same as atomic/tag-like categorization?
Yeah yeah , i get it you propose to have the user add categories in a subst- template like fashion, but that is just a "convenience", the end-result is atomic categorization.
Uhm... ...I'm all for it :-). And as we all know built in category intersection is (just like Duke Nukem Forever and Nuclear Fusion) juuuuust about to happen ;-).
2009/6/19 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de
I posted into a Commons user sandbox: User:Alex brollo/O_Categories a
more
detailed talk about novel use of self-transcluding categories. . I'd like
Ok, how is that not pretty much exactly the same as atomic/tag-like categorization?
Yeah yeah , i get it you propose to have the user add categories in a subst- template like fashion, but that is just a "convenience", the end-result is atomic categorization.
Uhm... ...I'm all for it :-). And as we all know built in category intersection is (just like Duke Nukem Forever and Nuclear Fusion) juuuuust about to happen ;-)
Thanks Daniel for your interest.
As usual, I have a strange "do-it-yoursef" approach to this kind of difficult topics. So I can't guess if/where/how this kind of topic has been discussed (I saw lots of discussions on categorization, many of them so much exoteric than I can't undestand them; nor I'm interested into extensions development, I have much fun using existing, basic tools) . Nevertheless, in my tryes, such e trick turned out very simple to use, you can add and remove "axes", "branches" and "leaves" and to convert a "leaf" (i.e. a "terminal category") into a "branch"... a couple of more interested comments, and I'll implement just some of such "catwords" into Commons, just to let you see how they precisely work.
Alex
can add and remove "axes", "branches" and "leaves" and to convert a "leaf" (i.e. a "terminal category") into a "branch"... a couple of more interested
I don't quite see how that should work, since you are substing categories for incategory to work.
comments, and I'll implement just some of such "catwords" into Commons, just to let you see how they precisely work.
I would advise against doing this for now, as you'd be essentially "polluting" the category tree. There have been longstanding debates on this issue. If atomic categorization were to be decided upon (and it is still controvesially discussed) I'm sure we want a propper solution rather than the hack you are proposing.
It is tempting to just try to get something started, but with a massive system like commons categories and without large community backing your effort is likely to be a damp squib, causing just a maintenance nuisance when we have to clean it up.
Again: me likes atomic categorization, but please with community consensus and a proper implementation.
2009/6/19 Daniel Schwen lists@schwen.de
Again: me likes atomic categorization, but please with community consensus and a proper implementation.
Nothing without community consensus, for sure. Here I am just to see if there's a little bit of interest.
Thanks for yur comments; next step will be, to close the talk here, and to move it at Commons Village pump. If Commons community will discourage me, I'll simply go back on into a smaller community as it.source, where my bot can fix any trouble.
Alex