Re: An Addition to the List

< Next Message | Back to archived message list | Previous Message >

Note: This message is from the outliners.com archive kindly provided by Dave Winer.

Outliners.com Message ID: 2443

Posted by daly_de_gagne
2005-01-05 14:18:24

In IH, I don’t have to move categories to different groups one by one, Stephen. I can move one, two, a half dozen categories from one group to another, piece of cake.

Your question may not have concerned setting up the keywords; but my observation did.

I stand by what I wrote, and would add that reorganization in IH is in my view as easy as it is in an outliner.

Your inference may have been that IH is more adapted to a system where the categories are relatively permanent, as contrasted with categories “most appropriate” to MyInfo 3 and UR. However, in terms of what it can do and how it functions, there is no basis for such an inference. I wasn’t aware that MyInfo had a keyword system, and IH is easier in my mind than UR. I think it would be helpful if you had greater familiarity with what IH actually does. Incidentally, how does a category qualify as being more appropriate for one program than for another?

When I wrote about using an outline for keywords, saying that I wasn’t sure whether it was a case of trying to make the tree fit a new function, or to make the keywords fit the tree, I was saying in a light way that I didn’t think the tree was an ideal way to base key words, that while it was possible, it was more awkward than having a dedicated keyword scheme based on a list or lists. You wrote the following which, frankly, I do not understand: “No, two names for a single function, the cross-classification of data. If you think there are two separate functions involved, you should name or describe each.”

Daly

Back to archived message list