keywords in LightRoom
alunfoto at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 03:14:14 EDT 2009
2009/10/5 Graydon <oak at uniserve.com>:
> That "tree" is really an acyclic directed graph,
I'm sorry, I think we belong to different tribes... :-)
> and because of the
> one-and-only-one-path property of those graphs (there is only one way to
> get to any node in the graph from the root of the tree), if you move
> "leaves" like that, you're defining a different node, because it has
> different ancestry.
Ah! You belong to the Object-Orientation tribe, don't you? :-)
Sorry, just teasing. Don't put too much into the allegory. I don't
think fancy explanations for why it doesn't work is actually
necessary. The most important thing is to know why things work the way
By what I do for a living, I have to deal with dynamic controlled
vocabularies. The "dynamic" thing is what set my thoughts spinning re:
LR too. At work we define a plethora of business rules to deal with
it, in terms of "Change Control Procedures", "latency times" and so
on. We also have ways to encode the status of different values in the
hierarchy, like "temporary" and "deprecated".
At the end of the day, you need rather complex XML for exchange
formats, and rather complex applications/databases to keep track of it
all. Far beyond the current scope of the keywording in LR.
What could amend quite a lot of the issues for my own part, though, is
an option to mark certain keywords as "deprecated". Meaning that they
are still searchable and show up in the hierarchy with statistics, but
are not possible to assign to new photos.
> It's not working by keyword comparison. (Or you
> could only ever have one use of "vacation" or "work" in your keyword
> -- Graydon
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML at pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
More information about the PDML