Live data from Hacker News

Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

nayuki.io

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#61
post #48
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people would agree a tag filesystem or a similar concept is a great idea. I have wanted one myself for a long time. Yet, for some reason, it doesn't take off. Do you think it is just a problem of implementation?

A few things I can see off the top of my head that would need to be solved for tag filesystems to be able to take off: 1. Inertia. Most software assumes hierarchical filesystems, and assumes it can control some portion of that hierarchy. This includes things ranging from search paths for various things ($PATH for binaries, library paths, etc), temporary files, preferences files for applications, assumptions made abou…

I think many of these issues can be addressed with mechanisms proposed by the author.

Mainly, the more complex tags which can themselves refer to other tags.

1. This is probably the trickiest one. You may be able to do some sort of translation between a hierarchical system and the tag system using tags themselves. You could have a series of tags that refer to each other, such that the hierarchical location is essentially encoded in the tags themselves.

2. Again, maybe just special tags?

3. Yeah, again, tags. Just tag the thing with the media it's on.

4. Aside from the basic UI side of things which should help, there is the idea of shared tagging systems. I don't recall if that came from the author or another commenter on HN. And you can basically ask the same question about hierarchical systems. It's not exactly a solved problem there either.

5. Again, the complex tags. Just make a tag for the project.

6. Obviously UI is a big question. I'm not sure how it relates so much to media-specific browsers though. They basically present a different view of a section of a filesystem. You have to do some work to let them do this, or else use a system like iTunes and buy all of your media through them.

7. Although I feel this is well addressed by the author, one thing I think you aren't considering is that each of these applications requires their own setup in order to provide that view. You often can't just take the directory from one of these programs and use a different program to view it and have it all work properly. If you only have one program for each media type and never want to use anything else that works, sort of. Many years ago I directed iTunes to redo the file layout for my music collection and rendered it effectively useless for direct browsing. I never really recovered from that due to the time involved to sort it out.

And mutability isn't totally handwaved away, again with the complex tag system you could tag mutated works with a reference back to the original. This doesn't cover the case where you don't wish to retain the original, but then you could just do a simple find/replace with the old and new hashes in the simplest case.

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#62
post #25

This is good thinking, and mostly overlaps with what I've tried to do a few times, so I would love to see it finally happen somehow. For example, the Newton storage system I worked on at Apple 1990-1996 was based on separating organization from storage so we could have multiple (tag and/or hierarchy) organization systems. That eventually became the "soup" system in the shipping Newton OS, where objects were retrieved…

If you were one of the people behind the ideas in Soup, I salute you.

Thanks! That was pretty much just me, but it was inspired by reading a whole bunch of other peoples' books and papers on persistent object systems. That was a big topic of research at the time. I don't really know why the persistent object idea fell out of sight so completely.

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#63

>But fundamentally, there is a mismatch between the narrowness of hierarchies and the rich structure of human knowledge, and the proposed system will not presuppose the features of HFSes. This hits the nail on the head ! All the fileSystems I had to work with are fine as engineering tools. By that I mean using them as an engineer works just fine, their own implementation is off topic. As a user though. What the hell…

Didn't Windows try to do this starting with 7? It has "libraries". It was awful and I just wanted the real file system back.

Libraries would be a-OK if they were the only abstractions available. You can group your stuff into a number of libraries and call it a day.

Unfortunately, Microsoft changed their mind and kinda-deprecated-but-not-completely-eliminated libraries in Windows 10. They also added a whole bunch of similar features that don't fully replace the functionality that libraries used to offer. Now there are at least four different places where the same content might be shown: Quick access, folders under This PC, folders in the actual drives (also under This PC), and Libraries (if you choose to display them). It's an unholy mess that needs registry hacks to clean up.

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#64
post #56
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't help that Windows /never/ (still hasn't) developed an actual standard library abstraction of what the filesystem is. In the Unix world your standard library either handles all supported filesystems for you, or more often, just provides a working abstraction of that via the kernel's own VFS abstraction of the supported filesystems. Literally, in the UNIX/POSIX world there is exactly one way to open a file f…

What do you mean? fopen exists on windows.

It seems you are correct. I /do/ remember something a /long/ time ago having this issue, but even some quick searching reveals that MSDN documents fopen existing back in 2008, and the notes supporting UNCs. I wonder how the underlying support is handled.

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#66
post #25

This is good thinking, and mostly overlaps with what I've tried to do a few times, so I would love to see it finally happen somehow. For example, the Newton storage system I worked on at Apple 1990-1996 was based on separating organization from storage so we could have multiple (tag and/or hierarchy) organization systems. That eventually became the "soup" system in the shipping Newton OS, where objects were retrieved…

Would you have time to say a bit more about why WinFS failed from your point of view?

Oh man, that would take a book. If I had to severely boil it down: You can have a beautiful unifying idea that seems to make total sense in the abstract, but then bog down completely when you have to make real implementation decisions in the context of a massive existing platform with a several-thousand-person development team. At some point a system's assumptions become so established that there are certain aspects that are literally impossible to change. Good intentions, even with the full support of the highest levels of management, can't resolve all the tangles.

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#67
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most people would agree a tag filesystem or a similar concept is a great idea. I have wanted one myself for a long time. Yet, for some reason, it doesn't take off. Do you think it is just a problem of implementation?

Hierarchical file systems allow you to say for sure where a file isn't. Every tagging system I've ever played with has turned out to be a mess in actual use compared to the simplicity a hierarchy provides. (I am just a user, not a developer of filesystems, so this may be a naive opinion.)

Tags are fun when you have a few thousand items to test your MVP with. It gets much less fun when you have millions of items with thousands of tags, all on a flat hierarchy.

On the other hand, when you're stuck with a flat hierarchy anyway (e.g. thousands of pictures, all named DCIMxxxx.jpg), tags can be more useful. But only if they're automatic.

I want the best of both worlds. I want to organize my stuff into folders and use tags to search for individual items. There's no need to be a purist on either side. "Designing better file organization around tags" is a good thing. "Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies" is not.

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#68
I 100% agree that a tag based file system is better than a hierarchical or folder based system. The problem is that people seem to fall into one of two camps - too confused by how to make tags work, or too enamored with organizing things into folders.

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#69
post #57
post #51

for simple use cases, folder beats everything else. when you have a large numbers in deep path then tags should be the way to go, you will need a database to manage it for portability across OSes etc. with tags we need isolate how-to-store-the-files from how-to-organize-them-for-easy-access, tags can be used to build a virtual folder hierarchy for example.

just curious, why the down vote? i wish I can see who down voted, is there a way to check?

What would you do with the names?

Re: Designing better file organization around tags, not hierarchies (2017)

#70
post #52

I've wanted something along these lines for a long time as well. I have trouble drawing hard lines and distinctions (this is pervasive; things like having a "favorite" anything, or the desire to debate what genres a song or movie fall into, are rather alien to me). This makes picking "one" place for something difficult. Because these are fine/fuzzy distinctions for me, it's also tricky to reason my way back to where…

I don't see why one couldn't have a tag system whose scope is defined by its location in a hierarchical structure.
Post reply on HN