On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 01:14, Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 26. feb. 2012 22:49, Adrian Maier wrote:
>> Locating/searching is one thing . And the actual storage of the >> files is another thing . >> >> Let's not mix those two things together. > > > Exactly. Storage is completely irrelevant. Particularly for the Dash, which > is designed to get data from all kinds of different sources. That, in and of > itself, is a very good reason not to use a hierarchical scheme. It is irrelevant , as long as command line tools and file managers (like Gnome Commander) still work . They wouldn't work if the files are stored in some kind of new non-hierarchical data storage ... >> So basically the idea is to generalize the idea of "photo album >> management using labels" to any kind of file. It could be >> interesting. > > That is what we currently do and have been doing for a few releases now, > though the user-visible tools to exploit it have just started to appear. > When you access something in your Ubuntu system, you store when you accessed > it, how you accessed it (clicked on a file), what you accessed it with > (Nautilus), what was used to display the file (Totem), etc. Just in order to > prevent heart attacks, let me quickly add that it's obviously only stored on > your own computer and as personal information! There's nothing googlebing > about it :) > > We can store all kinds of other types of information in addition to that, > such as where you were (using GPS), who were nearby (using Bluetooth), what > project you were working on (using Hamster, for instance)... So, if you > always play poker on friday nights, for instance, it makes sense to make > your poker application extra visible on friday nights, even if you don't use > it much during the week. I probably wouldn't even notice that every Friday , the Poker is shown the first in the list of frequently used apps. And that in the rest of the days it's the 10th in the list. > That is how recent applications, files, etc, are retrieved. The same could > be done for the web, of course, making it possible to automatically add web > applications to the applications lens, and as a frequent application in the > dash. Then those web applications would be launched using a special web-app > application which would give the web-app its own browser instance, > quicklist, etc. None of that is impossible. It would be extremely > impractical to implement that in something like Gnome menubar, for the > simple reason that over time, you'll use a large number of web applications > from different places. Storing that in a menusystem that displays everything > all the time, wouldn't work. I don't fully understand why are you mentioning that there will be a "large" number of web applications . It would be simply one lens full of links to the user's preferred web applications (actually websites...) . These can be maybe 10-20 , not thousands . It's hard to see what is the big novelty here : in 10.04 it is already possible to create an app launcher that starts firefox with a specific url. Hopefully there is no intention to have in the Dash a huge list of all the websites that exist in the world , right ?! So the idea would be to have the user's recently accessed websites presented inside Dash? This sounds handy if done right : if it's dynamic it would need a clever algorithm for ignoring the irrelevant urls . >> However it's hard to imagine how could someone backup the photos if >> the files are stored "nobody knows where" and are accessible with >> multiple search paths . This sounds like chaos . > > > No, why? You'd backup a set of files based on what they contain and how you > use them, not where they are located. Then you add a "last backup" tag to > the files, and you would be able to get files which hadn't been backed up by > searching for files with old backup tags. That might also help clean the > system, because if you never care to backup a file, then that might mean > it's because the file isn't needed anymore. So you could be presented with a > list of files you've chosen not to backup, and given an option to remove > them. When talking about backup it is dangerous to confuse the access frequency with the importance of a file . Ex: I definitely want to backup the master thesis and the related documents , even if i don't open any of those files in years ... > To me, semantic data access is the exact opposite of chaos. It is clarity > and easy access across all kinds of data sources. I could get used to a "semantic" way for accessing the applications. But redefining the file handling experience in a backwards-incompatible way would be unwelcome . Innovation is good when it actually introduces new features, not when it tries to radically change how people manage their files just for the sake of being unique . I welcome the idea of having tags for files , and advanced search possibilities . However these should be additional features , not replacement for the traditional file management. Imagine that : - there are 400 files , tagged with 20 different tags - searching works perfectly , bla bla - however at some point i'll want to review what's available ( copy the important files on an usb stick , cleanup , delete what is unneeded, etc) - at that point i'll hit the problem of redundancy : the same file will appears in multiple tags - if want to see everything , i'll have a huge list of dis-organized 400 files . - if i look at the contents of each tag , it would become difficult to keep track of all those files that appear in multiple places So from my point of view, the semantic desktop seems seems to have nice features . It just shouldn't attempt to replace the file tree browsing and management (as it does with the apps) . There is room (and there are use cases) for all approaches . My message is : please don't be too innovative regarding the file management. Don't replace all wheels with anti-gravitational spheres .... >> So you are thinking to have the metadata stored in a small database. >> And integrate into the desktop the ability to manage the files with >> labels , and search for them. > > Not only labels. Structured metadata. We're using that database now. It's > called Zeitgeist. You can read more about it here: > http://zeitgeist-project.com/. It's a seriously cool project that creates > seriously cool possibilities. Once we have good metadata, it becomes > possible to build truly intelligent solutions that understands this data. > For instance, when a customer calls you on the phone, the system prepares > all the data relevant to that customer so that you have quick access to it > when you answer the phone. Again, if the user has a bluetooth-enabled phone, > the system could do this automatically when the customer enters the room. > Or, your GPS could be used for the same thing. For instance, when you enter > your office, the system makes your business stuff more available and your > personal stuff less available. > > >> What about the actual files ? They still have to be stored somewhere >> : in a real filesystem , or in some kind of database. > > They have to be stored somewhere, somehow. It doesn't matter where or how, > as long as you have access to them. Zeitgeist knows where the files are and > hence whether they're accessible, which is why the recent files in dash will > immediately hide files when you disconnect a USB datasource, for instance. > If the files aren't available, you can't do anything with them, so don't > show them. >> Using a database would be a really bad option : the access to the > > Any single solution would be bad. We should always support any kind of > storage. Currently, for instance, computers are able to use EEG to read > patters from your brain. That's currently very primitive and only after > serious training can it be used to write, for instance. In the future, it > may be possible to use your brain as a data source. Sure that should be > supported. Can you imagine using the memory of your first kiss as a key in > order to login or to encrypt your data? :) That's funny . Imagine that the user encrypts everything with the "thought" of his beloved one. Then he goes through a nasty divorce. And then he becomes unable to access any of the files because the encryption "thought" is no longer recognized : now he feels rage every time when thinking of the former wife and therefore is unable to reproduce the mental encryption key . > That may sound insane, but I think when designing software, it's important > to keep an open mind. Besides, the real insanity is, that idea isn't insane > anymore. It's just a little far fetched. :) > > >> file would be possible only from within the special "semantic" file >> manager . Inaccessible from command line . And inaccessible from >> other file managers or desktop environments . > > No. Why? It is not possible if the files are moved into a new kind of storage . This route is bad. However it is possible if the files remain "normal" and the semantic desktop only introduces an alternative view for accessing them . > You can access web pages in Firefox now using keywords for your > bookmarks instead of storing it in a hierarchy. But you can store it in a > hierarchy in addition to using keywords, and of course, in reality web > servers present them in their hierarchy, and the network itself can be seen > as another hierarchy. There's no conflicts. And the command line is very > much more suitable for semantic access than any GUI I've seen, since it's > actually intended to express words. > Todays GUIs are actually more suitable > for static data that never changes. But GUIs can be modernized. This is why > we're here. The HUD in Unity, for instance, is available as a CLI > application as well, proving that there's no conflicts between GUI and CLI > in that regard. > > >> If the files are stored in a real filesystem, there will be problems >> with keeping the metadata in sync with the actual files. > > No, they're different things. You have your set of metadata on your > computer. Let's say I am the object. Your metadata is correct as long as it > reflects your opinions about me. How accurate those opinions _really_ are, > is a completely different thing. The goal is for you to express yourself to > your computer. That's also why it's important that the metadata isn't simply > a tag editor. It needs to react to your actions and learn from what you do – > like Ubuntu does. :) That's true : actually there is no tags system currently available in Ubuntu . So discussing about tags is just an assumption about a future feature that might exist or not. > > When mentioning sync problem I was having in mind situations like : - on an external disk there is a collection of photos . Everything is tagged and searching works nicely . - if i rename a directory from command line , I expect that the semantic desktop would loose track of that particular directory . - assuming that the tags is stored on the computer , all the tags will be unavailable when attaching the external disk to another pc (a laptop that is running the same Ubuntu version) . - it is also very useful to preserve the tags This is why the metadata belongs to the filesystem when talking about external devices . Perhaps external drives could carry a subset of the metadata , that get synchronized when the device is attached to a computer. Also, it is seems useful to save the metadata when doing backups : when the user upgrades the computer it will be nice to be able to restore the metadata on the new machine together with the files. >> So I would take this idea much more seriously if i had heard you guys >> speaking of designing a new modern filesystem that adds support for >> file metadata , file tagging , and advanced search capabilities . >> So it would be a backwards-compatible filesystem usable from any >> already existing application , but adding some new ground-breaking >> features . >> > > There's no need for new file systems at all. And Zeitgeist isn't a secret. > Neither is NEPOMUK, which is a related, but different technology. It's very > exciting stuff. > > And we have already begun to see ground-breaking features, such as the Dash > and the HUD. Obviously; the best is yet to come. Just consider what will > happen when we're finally able to ditch IPv4 and people are able to connect > their computers to others and share data freely. If you're famiar with > Last.fm's Scrobbler system, consider a digital life scrobbler that you can > share directly with your friends without giant data providers as > intermediaries. Then your friends computer can learn from your computer how > you think, and then use that to optimize communications between you and your > friends. > > Suffice it to say, I'm all about the weird stuff :) Ok ! Cheers, Adrian -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
