Forum Posts Feed
The Function Beyond
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by 22111
Jul 31, 2022 at 10:35 AM
Ok, ok, I left out a justification for the additional, semi-automated “tax ID”: it serves to automatically combine all those, instead of heaving to list them, again and again for any such “alternative” “view” (I write “view” because it’s just short for “active representation” or something like that, whilst real “views”, without double quotes, are just what the term implies: you couldn’t work on them, just view them, and copy from them, perhaps even do non-destructive filtering and the like). Thus, you do some “work” once-and-for-all, and then get much faster results in multiple “views”.
On the other hand, technically, you also could do some “primal”, “source” construct, ordered in a strict taxonomic way, and then, whenever you want to create alternative “views”, all of them then to be derivated from their common, “original” “source”, you could have that “original tree”, on the left, and your “target tree” on the right, with any “click” into the “original” then not “copying” the clicked item into the derivative build-up, but all its “children”, with perhaps additional keys for “just its immediate children”, or, with different selections, by expansion vs. collapsing, for different “depths” for different descendents.
In such an environment, the tool will then need to inform you about “left-overs”, i.e. about “orphans” you will have overlooked, and which will not have yet found their position within the “target tree”.
And speaking in general (i.e. for both concepts to get variant constructs), yes, it often might make sense to “export” just some, and even different PARTS of a “tree” (even within a “db within the db”, i.e. a further subset of the “natural” subset), an example coming to mind being the (more or less empty, i.e. possibly stripped of its descendancy further down) geographic part at some position of the specific db-in-the-db, and then just some phenomena, i.e. another “selection”, not bulk, from another part, into a new, now just partial, “directed” “view” of the dataset…
But then again, any envoking of that “partial, directed view” would be “live”, i.e. come with all the - previously “permitted” by your construct - data as it is presently is within the “original” (i.e. the “standard and complete representation”), and if you think that’s “too much” for individuals’ use, think about user-groups, about corporate environments: data subsets and data rearrangements are common tasks, so combining such tasks with a “natural” tree organization, without endless scripting to achieve that, every time, obviously makes sense, even for individuals who ask for more than for, well, “the strict minimum”.
Fact is, today’s DBs “permit” all sorts of “data crunching”, whilst “outliners” “bring order” into information data and such, but at the same, impose just one single order onto that data, and any real rearrangement (exception made then for filtering) will be destructive, which means, in practice, that you will have to produce just, logically non-“live” copies of the data you then can rearrange as you like, but which henceforth will contain obsolete data.
It’s obvious even “outliners” need the “third dimension”, just like and even better than it’s available in Excel and the like, after now about 40 years or even some more of “tool-based outlining”. (Or rather, it’s big time we got that functionality back, which died with askSam, to give credit where it’s due.)
Posted by Stephen Zeoli
Aug 1, 2022 at 02:48 PM
This entire thread is dispensable.
Posted by jaslar
Aug 5, 2022 at 12:57 AM
Hah! On the other hand, it is clearly labeled, as promised. And until us, this was a thread where 22111 was having an apparently deeply engaging conversation with ... well, with 22111. So hey, here’s your reward! We see you doing that!
Posted by MadaboutDana
Aug 8, 2022 at 08:16 AM
“Also sprach 22111” – it has a certain ring to it…
jaslar wrote:
Hah! On the other hand, it is clearly labeled, as promised. And until
>us, this was a thread where 22111 was having an apparently deeply
>engaging conversation with ... well, with 22111. So hey, here’s your
>reward! We see you doing that!
Posted by bvasconcelos
Aug 8, 2022 at 02:26 PM
“A thread for everyone and for no one”.
MadaboutDana wrote:
“Also sprach 22111” – it has a certain ring to it…
>
>jaslar wrote:
>Hah! On the other hand, it is clearly labeled, as promised. And until
>>us, this was a thread where 22111 was having an apparently deeply
>>engaging conversation with ... well, with 22111. So hey, here’s your
>>reward! We see you doing that!