Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bibliographic/OOoBib Functional Requirements/Keywords"
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
(→comments from Bruce) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I actually don't think this is a good idea. It involves far too much complication for minimal benefit. The same can be achieved using keywords/tags. Add some auto-completion for them, and problem largely solved. | I actually don't think this is a good idea. It involves far too much complication for minimal benefit. The same can be achieved using keywords/tags. Add some auto-completion for them, and problem largely solved. | ||
| − | Note: I'm not saying there isn't room for controlled vacabularies, where they are in effect, full resources/objects. Indeed, my own RDF collection works just this way. It's just that this sounds like a very complicated thing to implement in what needs, I think, to be a fairly stripped down component. | + | Note: I'm not saying there isn't room for controlled vacabularies, where they are in effect, full resources/objects. Indeed, my own RDF collection works just this way. It's just that this sounds like a very complicated thing to implement in what needs, I think, to be a fairly stripped down component. Also, it will not be possible to come up with any standard scheme that everyone (or even a majority) will agree on. |
Revision as of 12:42, 12 July 2006
comments from Bruce
I actually don't think this is a good idea. It involves far too much complication for minimal benefit. The same can be achieved using keywords/tags. Add some auto-completion for them, and problem largely solved.
Note: I'm not saying there isn't room for controlled vacabularies, where they are in effect, full resources/objects. Indeed, my own RDF collection works just this way. It's just that this sounds like a very complicated thing to implement in what needs, I think, to be a fairly stripped down component. Also, it will not be possible to come up with any standard scheme that everyone (or even a majority) will agree on.
