[Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 28/01/2016, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-01-27 18:00 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>:
>
>> You barely broach the subject of how MV and namespaces combine. For
>> example if an object has multiple refs with sources, it should be
>> clear wether an MV tag corresponds to "multiple sources for all the
>> refs" or to "source for the 2nd ref". In suffix syntax, this could be
>> distriinguished by "ref_1=x ref_2=y source_1:ref=a source_2:ref=b" vs
>> "ref_1=x ref_2=y source:ref_1=a source:ref_2=b", even though this is
>> becoming hairy.
>
> I believe we should restructure the way we use metadata aside with data in
> the particular tags source and maybe note and fixme (but not description).
> We are trying to convince people to add source tags on the changesets, but
> putting them on individual objects still has strong advocates, so we will
> likely have to live with it. As an idea, the source information could
> become a subtag of another tag, i.e. rather than being attached to an
> object it would be attached to a tag (or to the position). This could also
> become more refined with several, optional formalized source tags, e.g. for
> the source date, a source link, a source license(?), etc.

Fair point, but IMHO off-topic (not related to MVs).

Replace ref/source with destination/lanes (or any other namespaced key
that could use a MV at different levels of the namespace) in my
earlyer mail if you don't like the idea of source tags on objects
rather than changesets.