What kind of meta data will you associate with data files which requires a 'database' driven API? I am still not able to understand the benefits or the usage. Is there some material I can read up on for database driven file systems?
Look at iTunes or iPhoto. All that metadata, such as keywords, collections (albums), etc, could be created for *any* file. So you could have a 'smart folder' in the Finder that would contain "All files I've tagged as 'Project Take-Over-the-World' and 'Important'", and any file that you ever created matching that criteria would appear there, just like the iApps update Smart Albums.
Personally, with the iApps' increasing use of metadata, and the adoption of the metal sidebar in the Finder, I think we've all been being trained to accept metadata as a useful tool for generalized files.
Sneaky.
Apple's been bitten too many times by coming up with *KILLER* tech, only to have the end users be utterly clueless as to how to utilize it... and it's gone by the wayside.
Look at iTunes or iPhoto. All that metadata, such as keywords, collections (albums), etc, could be created for *any* file. So you could have a 'smart folder' in the Finder that would contain "All files I've tagged as 'Project Take-Over-the-World' and 'Important'", and any file that you ever created matching that criteria would appear there, just like the iApps update Smart Albums.
Exactly. The database is what makes metadata truly useful, and vice versa: Each piece of metadata becomes a way to select a desired set of files from the whole collection, and to do so interactively, rather than statically (e.g., by arranging them into folders.
(Really, folders are metadata when you get right down to it.)
Quote:
Apple's been bitten too many times by coming up with *KILLER* tech, only to have the end users be utterly clueless as to how to utilize it... and it's gone by the wayside.
Nah. Apple's been bitten too many times by coming up with killer tech that they had no clue how to exploit. Whoever decided, for example, that Cyberdog should be one OpenDoc part should have been strung up by their thumbs. Talk about missing the point completely!
If I remember correctly, this time around last year, the first rumors about Panther's new features (see piles) were circulating. Now, every Panther user, enjoys his... piles . I only hope the macnews.net news are not like the last... pile-like ones.
So you could have a 'smart folder' in the Finder that would contain "All files I've tagged as 'Project Take-Over-the-World' and 'Important'", and any file that you ever created matching that criteria would appear there, just like the iApps update Smart Albums.
So if I'm getting this right, that means I could "tag" into a picture the names of all the people in that picture. Then when I want to find all the pictures of say... that Julie is in... I would just do a search for Julie?
So if I'm getting this right, that means I could "tag" into a picture the names of all the people in that picture. Then when I want to find all the pictures of say... that Julie is in... I would just do a search for Julie?
Now, if you want things to get really interesting, remember that applications are files, too, (folders of files, in OS X, but then folders are files...) and there's all kinds of interesting metadata you can associate with them.
This reminds me of a post WAY long ago by a guy that claimed some inside connection at Apple and was spelling out this long term Apple strategy that REALLY looks like it is beginning to take shape.
Essentially, one of the things that came out of that was that things like iPhoto and iTunes were really just "specialized Finders". And in fact they really are. Think about it, iTunes are really what happens if Finder and QuickTime got together and had a baby. Well, more like a three-way (no offense intended) between Finder, a database and QuickTime.
Now the revision of the Finder UI (in light of this) maybe makes much more sense. AddressBook may be exactly the same thing.
It's just that it is taking them some time to get there. Apple's approach of these (far more) incremental OS releases is a much wiser strategy than MS's Longhorn "whole ball of wax in one super duper humungo release" strategy.
Yes, and much easier to ramp users up to. (Yes, Amorph, and Apple developers... )
Rich metadata behind the scenes, database-esque access to it through simple interfaces, open APIs for interacting with the data and searches programmatically...
Oh yeah, it's looking good.
And you're right. Compare this with MS's "We'll unroll it all at once, and hope the UI is good enough, hope there aren't too many bugs at any given level, hope that users can figure out how to use it..."
Now, if you want things to get really interesting, remember that applications are files, too, ?and there's all kinds of interesting metadata you can associate with them.
My head hurts.
So how would a spatial Finder be incorporated into all this, if it could be? While I don't use the Finder like this that much, the old Finder along with aspects of Raskin's THE project are very compelling to me: a more visual and less verbal or mathematical (for lack of a better term) way of managing stuff.
I would think that the UI of the future would index and present information for all our senses and intelligences, except maybe smell.
So how would a spatial Finder be incorporated into all this, if it could be? While I don't use the Finder like this that much, the old Finder along with aspects of Raskin's THE project are very compelling to me: a more visual and less verbal or mathematical (for lack of a better term) way of managing stuff.
I would think that the UI of the future would index and present information for all our senses and intelligences, except maybe smell.
Yes, and much easier to ramp users up to. (Yes, Amorph, and Apple developers... )
That's crucial, though! Apple clearly has a discipline that doesn't allow them to implement technologies that they can't find a clear use for, and that's what actually allows them to innovate in significant ways.
And re: a spatial Finder, you'd also need data attached to each folder that specifies whether it's already open (because, in a spatial philosophy, there is a 1:1 ratio between folders and windows into them), and the full window state so that if it's opened, it looks exactly like it did when it was last open, and it has exactly the same position on screen.
But your point stands: It would not be hard at all to implement a truly spatial browser using metadata.
That's crucial, though! Apple clearly has a discipline that doesn't allow them to implement technologies that they can't find a clear use for, and that's what actually allows them to innovate in significant ways.
And re: a spatial Finder, you'd also need data attached to each folder that specifies whether it's already open (because, in a spatial philosophy, there is a 1:1 ratio between folders and windows into them), and the full window state so that if it's opened, it looks exactly like it did when it was last open, and it has exactly the same position on screen.
But your point stands: It would not be hard at all to implement a truly spatial browser using metadata.
Absolutely.
A spatial Finder becomes just one type of viewer of the metadata. A non-spatial Finder just ignores that information, and uses something else in the metadata mix.
Heck, THT's desired natural language interface could just be yet another viewer into the metadata.
And all of this conforms to the classic MVC model.
Comments
Personally, with the iApps' increasing use of metadata, and the adoption of the metal sidebar in the Finder, I think we've all been being trained to accept metadata as a useful tool for generalized files.
Sneaky.
Apple's been bitten too many times by coming up with *KILLER* tech, only to have the end users be utterly clueless as to how to utilize it... and it's gone by the wayside.
Maybe they've learned.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Look at iTunes or iPhoto. All that metadata, such as keywords, collections (albums), etc, could be created for *any* file. So you could have a 'smart folder' in the Finder that would contain "All files I've tagged as 'Project Take-Over-the-World' and 'Important'", and any file that you ever created matching that criteria would appear there, just like the iApps update Smart Albums.
Exactly. The database is what makes metadata truly useful, and vice versa: Each piece of metadata becomes a way to select a desired set of files from the whole collection, and to do so interactively, rather than statically (e.g., by arranging them into folders.
(Really, folders are metadata when you get right down to it.)
Apple's been bitten too many times by coming up with *KILLER* tech, only to have the end users be utterly clueless as to how to utilize it... and it's gone by the wayside.
Nah. Apple's been bitten too many times by coming up with killer tech that they had no clue how to exploit. Whoever decided, for example, that Cyberdog should be one OpenDoc part should have been strung up by their thumbs. Talk about missing the point completely!
Originally posted by Kickaha
So you could have a 'smart folder' in the Finder that would contain "All files I've tagged as 'Project Take-Over-the-World' and 'Important'", and any file that you ever created matching that criteria would appear there, just like the iApps update Smart Albums.
So if I'm getting this right, that means I could "tag" into a picture the names of all the people in that picture. Then when I want to find all the pictures of say... that Julie is in... I would just do a search for Julie?
Originally posted by iPeon
So if I'm getting this right, that means I could "tag" into a picture the names of all the people in that picture. Then when I want to find all the pictures of say... that Julie is in... I would just do a search for Julie?
Correct.
At least, that's the only previous comment that "It doesn't" makes sense to as a response.
Harald?
http://segusoland.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html
Essentially, one of the things that came out of that was that things like iPhoto and iTunes were really just "specialized Finders". And in fact they really are. Think about it, iTunes are really what happens if Finder and QuickTime got together and had a baby. Well, more like a three-way (no offense intended) between Finder, a database and QuickTime.
Now the revision of the Finder UI (in light of this) maybe makes much more sense. AddressBook may be exactly the same thing.
It's just that it is taking them some time to get there. Apple's approach of these (far more) incremental OS releases is a much wiser strategy than MS's Longhorn "whole ball of wax in one super duper humungo release" strategy.
Rich metadata behind the scenes, database-esque access to it through simple interfaces, open APIs for interacting with the data and searches programmatically...
Oh yeah, it's looking good.
And you're right. Compare this with MS's "We'll unroll it all at once, and hope the UI is good enough, hope there aren't too many bugs at any given level, hope that users can figure out how to use it..."
Originally posted by Amorph
Now, if you want things to get really interesting, remember that applications are files, too, ?and there's all kinds of interesting metadata you can associate with them.
My head hurts.
So how would a spatial Finder be incorporated into all this, if it could be? While I don't use the Finder like this that much, the old Finder along with aspects of Raskin's THE project are very compelling to me: a more visual and less verbal or mathematical (for lack of a better term) way of managing stuff.
I would think that the UI of the future would index and present information for all our senses and intelligences, except maybe smell.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
My head hurts.
So how would a spatial Finder be incorporated into all this, if it could be? While I don't use the Finder like this that much, the old Finder along with aspects of Raskin's THE project are very compelling to me: a more visual and less verbal or mathematical (for lack of a better term) way of managing stuff.
I would think that the UI of the future would index and present information for all our senses and intelligences, except maybe smell.
Spatial? EASY.
An (x,y) coordinate + bounding box = metadata.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yes, and much easier to ramp users up to. (Yes, Amorph, and Apple developers...
That's crucial, though! Apple clearly has a discipline that doesn't allow them to implement technologies that they can't find a clear use for, and that's what actually allows them to innovate in significant ways.
And re: a spatial Finder, you'd also need data attached to each folder that specifies whether it's already open (because, in a spatial philosophy, there is a 1:1 ratio between folders and windows into them), and the full window state so that if it's opened, it looks exactly like it did when it was last open, and it has exactly the same position on screen.
But your point stands: It would not be hard at all to implement a truly spatial browser using metadata.
Originally posted by Amorph
That's crucial, though! Apple clearly has a discipline that doesn't allow them to implement technologies that they can't find a clear use for, and that's what actually allows them to innovate in significant ways.
And re: a spatial Finder, you'd also need data attached to each folder that specifies whether it's already open (because, in a spatial philosophy, there is a 1:1 ratio between folders and windows into them), and the full window state so that if it's opened, it looks exactly like it did when it was last open, and it has exactly the same position on screen.
But your point stands: It would not be hard at all to implement a truly spatial browser using metadata.
Absolutely.
A spatial Finder becomes just one type of viewer of the metadata. A non-spatial Finder just ignores that information, and uses something else in the metadata mix.
Heck, THT's desired natural language interface could just be yet another viewer into the metadata.
And all of this conforms to the classic MVC model.
Finally.
Pls. Thx. Ltr.