tag structure
Locked
 
|
Hello everybody!
I am new to digiKam and I am currently developing a tagging system/structure that works for my needs. After some experiments with digiKam and a lot of online archive reading there are several open questions left. Let me explain this with an example: I live in Munich and there is a nice park in the city called English Garden. I've shot some pictures there and I've tagged them with "English Garden". For the tag structure I have /city/Munich/English Garden. Now let's assume that I'll visit London and I'll take some pictures in Hyde Park. I'll tag them with "Hyde Park" and I'll use the tag structure /city/London/Hyde Park. Ok, no problems so far. But now I'd like to have a tag "park" which is a super-tag of "English Garden" and "Hyde Park". Thus, I'd be in need of a tag structure like /park/English Garden and /park/Hyde Park. However, as far as I know I cannot assign both, /city/Munich and /park, as super-tags to English Garden. Of course it would be possible to create to distinct tag structures /city/Munich/English Garden and /park/English Garden. I would then have to tag every picture twice with two distinct "English Garden"-tags. This is quite ugly in my opinion for two reasons: First, there is a lot of redundant information stored in the image meta-data. Second, the semantics (i.e. the English Garden is a park and the English Garden is located in Munich) cannot be expressed and changed (!) without touching each single image. To sum up: Question 1.) Am I right that it is not possible to assign two or more parents to a tag? Question 2.) How do you work around such a "Multiple-Inheritance-Problem"? Question 3.) Do you consider it feasible to use a flat tagging structure and thereby completely exclude the semantics problem from digiKam? Thanks a lot for your help and suggestions! Bene _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
Why not just have a top level "Parks" tag and assign both to that. Then have a location/name tags as well.
_______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Benedikt Rudolph
On Tue Jun 22 9:32 , Benedikt Rudolph <[hidden email]> sent: > ... >But now I'd like to have a tag "park" which is a super-tag of "English Garden" and "Hyde Park". Thus, I'd be in need of a tag structure like /park/English Garden and /park/Hyde Park. However, as far as I know I cannot assign both, /city/Munich and /park, as super-tags to English Garden. > > >Of course it would be possible to create to distinct tag structures /city/Munich/English Garden and /park/English Garden. I would then have to tag every picture twice with two distinct "English Garden"-tags. This is quite ugly in my opinion for two reasons: First, there is a lot of redundant information stored in the image meta-data. Second, the semantics (i.e. the English Garden is a park and the English Garden is located in Munich) cannot be expressed and changed (!) without touching each single image. This is related to the ontology vs. tagging problem that Clay Shirky wrote about it http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html. It's an interesting article if you have the time to read it. He talks about Yahoo's ontology vs. del.icio.us's tags. This excerpt from the article shows some of the characteristics of the subject domains and user communities that are best served by ontologies: [Begin excerpt] Domain to be Organized * Small corpus * Formal categories * Stable entities * Restricted entities * Clear edges ... Participants * Expert catalogers * Authoritative source of judgment * Coordinated users * Expert users [End excerpt] This excerpt from the article shows some of the characteristics of the subject domains and user communities that are best served by tags: [Begin excerpt] Domain * Large corpus * No formal categories * Unstable entities * Unrestricted entities * No clear edges Participants * Uncoordinated users * Amateur users * Naive catalogers * No Authority [End excerpt] You might create several ontologies for your pictures but that can lead to duplication as you observed. Unless you don't mind that duplication, that suggests using something less rigid. > ... >Question 3.) Do you consider it feasible to use a flat tagging structure and thereby completely exclude the semantics problem from digiKam? You could use some of each. I have a few disjoint ontologies plus a number of singleton tags. In my tags, I have a hierarchy for places because a place can't be in two places at once. For instance, I have pictures from a trip to Europe last year tagged with "Europe/Germany/Koln" and "Europe/Switzerland/Valais/Breiten ob Morel". This lets me select all of the pictures from a continent, country, region, or city. The other tags are less rigid, such as "Train" for pictures of trains, "People/Suzanne" for pictures with my then girlfriend in them, and "Vacation" for pictures I took on vacation. The "People" ontology doesn't work well when someone changes her name. Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often but when it does, I usually leave the old tags in place for historical reasons. David Talmage _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Benedikt Rudolph
On Jun 22, 2010, at 3:32 AM, Benedikt Rudolph wrote: > Hello everybody! > > > I am new to digiKam and I am currently developing a tagging system/structure that works for my needs. After some experiments with digiKam and a lot of online archive reading there are several open questions left. Let me explain this with an example: > > I live in Munich and there is a nice park in the city called English Garden. I've shot some pictures there and I've tagged them with "English Garden". For the tag structure I have /city/Munich/English Garden. Now let's assume that I'll visit London and I'll take some pictures in Hyde Park. I'll tag them with "Hyde Park" and I'll use the tag structure /city/London/Hyde Park. Ok, no problems so far. > > But now I'd like to have a tag "park" which is a super-tag of "English Garden" and "Hyde Park". Thus, I'd be in need of a tag structure like /park/English Garden and /park/Hyde Park. However, as far as I know I cannot assign both, /city/Munich and /park, as super-tags to English Garden. > For this particular example you should consider using geotagging to locate the actual place and then use the Parks/ hierarchy to allow you to look at all your park photos. The main problem is that geotagging support in digikam is there but is not as polished as something like iPhoto or Picasa. -- Tim Jenness _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Benedikt Rudolph
Hi,
Benedikt Rudolph wrote: > For the tag structure I have /city/Munich/English Garden. I don't use the tree feature of tags. Instead, I use a very flat list, to be able to export the images to public photo sites (like flickr) with a tag that makes it able to find the images by these tags. In your case, it's enough to attach both /London and /Park to the images. This way, you may select all parks in London or Munich at once. HTH, Michael. _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Talmage-2
Good thread and thanks for the link to Shirky.
I look at your problem through different eyes and so I don't see a real problem. Lets look at your examples... /city/Munich/English Garden and /city/London/Hyde Park both have a garden or park tag but the tag is the name of the geographic location in which the photo was taken and not a description of what kind of place it is. There are many, many places that have the name park in them and they're not a park in any sense of the word. You must have other photos from those cities where you've tagged them with place names as well. That tag simply gets you to a place in the city. You can see that I'm heading to a second hierarchy for park and maybe even garden. I know your concerned about multiple tags but I don't see how you can get around it. Did you take a picture of a friend in one of your "Parks"; well then you have a tag for them as well. Maybe you were out with a bunch of your friends; you'll have a tag for each of them. Took a picture of a bird or some other animal in the park and you have a tag for them as well. The camera has already given you a bunch of tags. A few more don't seem like a problem to ME. One of the reasons I like tags is that it gives you many approaches to accessing your data, photos. Many of the people on this site use a simple date folder hierarchy to organize their photos and clearly it works for them but such an organizational scheme only gives you access by date unless the photographer can remember what was taken and when it was taken. Multiple tags gets around that problem. With tags you can do simple queries and find what you want. In my workplace if anyone needs a picture they come to me because they know that while I don't have that many photos, 12,000, I can find a photo in minutes. Need a photo of staff engaged in prescribed fire, I can find 50 of them in minutes and most of the time was in waiting for the program to boot up. One of the amazing things about tags is that they look and act a lot like folders. Yes we're back to that folder hierarchy but that means that we can rename tags or drag and drop them to new hierarchies and the software will change all of the tags in the photos for us. No opening the images. For me the moral of the story is just create tags and worry about getting it right later. I know it's not very elegant but the space occupied by a few tags is nothing compared to the ten megapixel image itself. OK tagging is not perfect. I agree with that but it seems to work. I should tell you that sometimes I also add a lengthy description of the photo in the comment tag just because the other tags don't seem adequate and yes I can query on that as well. > Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:10:43 -0400 > To: [hidden email] > From: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Digikam-users] tag structure > > > > On Tue Jun 22 9:32 , Benedikt Rudolph <[hidden email]> sent: > > > ... > >But now I'd like to have a tag "park" which is a super-tag of "English Garden" > and "Hyde Park". Thus, I'd be in need of a tag structure like /park/English > Garden and /park/Hyde Park. However, as far as I know I cannot assign both, > /city/Munich and /park, as super-tags to English Garden. > > > > > >Of course it would be possible to create to distinct tag structures > /city/Munich/English Garden and /park/English Garden. I would then have to tag > every picture twice with two distinct "English Garden"-tags. This is quite ugly > in my opinion for two reasons: First, there is a lot of redundant information > stored in the image meta-data. Second, the semantics (i.e. the English Garden is > a park and the English Garden is located in Munich) cannot be expressed and > changed (!) without touching each single image. > > This is related to the ontology vs. tagging problem that Clay Shirky wrote about > it http://www.shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html. It's an interesting > article if you have the time to read it. He talks about Yahoo's ontology vs. > del.icio.us's tags. > > This excerpt from the article shows some of the characteristics of the subject > domains and user communities that are best served by ontologies: > > [Begin excerpt] > Domain to be Organized > > * Small corpus > * Formal categories > * Stable entities > * Restricted entities > * Clear edges > > ... > > Participants > > * Expert catalogers > * Authoritative source of judgment > * Coordinated users > * Expert users > [End excerpt] > > > > This excerpt from the article shows some of the characteristics of the subject > domains and user communities that are best served by tags: > > [Begin excerpt] > Domain > > * Large corpus > * No formal categories > * Unstable entities > * Unrestricted entities > * No clear edges > > Participants > > * Uncoordinated users > * Amateur users > * Naive catalogers > * No Authority > [End excerpt] > > > You might create several ontologies for your pictures but that can lead to > duplication as you observed. Unless you don't mind that duplication, that > suggests using something less rigid. > > > ... > >Question 3.) Do you consider it feasible to use a flat tagging structure and > thereby completely exclude the semantics problem from digiKam? > > You could use some of each. I have a few disjoint ontologies plus a number of > singleton tags. > > In my tags, I have a hierarchy for places because a place can't be in two places > at once. For instance, I have pictures from a trip to Europe last year tagged > with "Europe/Germany/Koln" and "Europe/Switzerland/Valais/Breiten ob Morel". This > lets me select all of the pictures from a continent, country, region, or city. > The other tags are less rigid, such as "Train" for pictures of trains, > "People/Suzanne" for pictures with my then girlfriend in them, and "Vacation" for > pictures I took on vacation. > > The "People" ontology doesn't work well when someone changes her name. > Fortunately, that doesn't happen very often but when it does, I usually leave the > old tags in place for historical reasons. > > David Talmage > > _______________________________________________ > Digikam-users mailing list > [hidden email] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox. See how. _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
In reply to this post by Benedikt Rudolph
As describe, I would use the same thing, one geographical hierarchy of tag with "English garden" child of Munich and eventually an additional tag Park "hierarchised" or not (which describe what kind of place or subject is on the picture but not where it is).
As I work in a library, I practice indexation and "keywording" of book regularly. And use of plural form of a word can help to make distinction : THE English garden is only in Munich, and English gardens design design all garden of england or all gardens with the English style. So if you want a tag which concern the style of the garden an not the geographical situation, you could do this. For particular case of Munich's English Garden, I could have to use the both tags, but, they aren't the same by use of the plural form (or by use of parenthesis if no plural forms exist -e.g "English garden (style)"-) and they doesn't have similar signification nor the same kind of parent tag... And with the digikam search tool you can find what you want. If you have London/Hyde park, London/Green park , Munich/English garden, Munich/SüdPark and for example Paris/Luxembourg garden have too a KindOfPlace/Park tag, by looking for the "Park" tag (with tag filtering for example) you can find pictures about those gardens, and if you add a filter about London, you only have Londonians Gardens, and if you check Hyde park you only have Hyde Park pictures. I think it should be relatively efficient. Personnaly, for geographical tag, I use this kind of thing : Country (it's the parent tag name) /name of the country (or "sub-country" like Scotland for example) /name of the region or the zone (if needed by a large amount of picture) /Name of sub-zone if any /name of the town or of the place /eventually the name of a particular place of this place or town if a lot of place here For example, in France I could have : Country/France/Normandie/Eure/Les Andelys-Château Gaillard And if I want, I'll create later another hierarchy with : KindOfPLace/Castles/Medieval etc... _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
|
|
Hi,
I wants to report a little problem with Digikam I'm using last version 1.3 on PCLinuxOS (KDE) When i select a dark theme in configuration tool (for example dessert theme), the color of the police in the menu bar stay in black (view - Edit - Rename, etc) To have the right color enabled (here it's white), i must go to the settings menu and select "Configure Toolbars" and only click "Ok" It's true for all changing theme _______________________________________________ Digikam-users mailing list [hidden email] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users |
«
Return to digikam-users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |