[OSM-talk] Users, contributors and developers

[Andy Robinson]

SteveC [mailto:steve at asklater.com] wrote:
>Sent: 27 April 2007 9:45 AM
>To: Andy Robinson
>Cc: 'Frederik Ramm'; 'OSM'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Users, contributors and developers
>
>
>On 27 Apr 2007, at 09:28, Andy Robinson wrote:
>
>> SteveC wrote:
>>> Sent: 27 April 2007 9:27 AM
>>> To: Frederik Ramm
>>> Cc: OSM
>>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Users, contributors and developers
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27 Apr 2007, at 00:35, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Now I just wanted people to be able to have
>>>>> some third attribute, I don't super mind what it's called. I came
>>>>> away super frustrated that we couldn't even agree having it was a
>>>>> good idea.
>>>>
>>>> It's just different mentalities really. Some (including you) say
>>>> "let's put that in, I think people are going to put it to good use
>>>> somehow", others say "if you can't say how it should be used, then
>>>> leave it out because it will only add to the confusion... even
>>>> though we would like to have it...".
>>>>
>>>> It is true that introducing a "third column" without exact specs on
>>>> how to use it will add to the confusion. But that's not necessarily
>>>> a bad thing because out of the confusion my arise a better spec
>>>> than could have been provided beforehand. (May, not will; you never
>>>> know where you get with those community processes.
>>>
>>> What confusion? And there is a clear use-case - namespaces.
>>>
>>
>> For the laymen amongst us (myself included ;-) ) can someone
>> concisely give
>> the reasons that suggest a third column over and above the use of
>> namespaces?
>
>We were talking about the order and the name of what in database
>terms is just a third column (in addition to key and value). So
>should it be called namespace or subkey or what and in what order
>should it be given?
>
>eg
>
>namespace:key=value
>eg en:name:blah street
>
>or subkey?
>
>key:subkey=value
>
>name:de=blahstrasse
>
> From the database POV it really doesn't matter but for those who see
>the keyval system as 'chaos' it's all deeply significant. We couldn't
>even agree that a third column was _needed_. Andy speaking from the
>front lines would it be useful if it existed?
>

We are using namespaces now, so presumably the key table simply currently
holds "namespace:key". Now that's fine and dandy for a simple namespace but
does it extend well? There is no doubt that whether it's a subkey or a
prekey we are going to want more depth capability within the tags to make
better use of a key structure, even if the structure is informal. But if we
define the structure in xml to separate out en: and name: / key: subkey etc
before they are joined up to drop into the keys table is there any need to
have more than one? If the cool feature of searching and filtering at the
API level can be done better with a third table then go for it, if the
overhead doesn't really gain us much why bother?.

Hope I'm not over simplifying things here.

Cheers

Andy

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk

>have fun,
>
>SteveC | steve at asklater.com | http://www.asklater.com/steve/
>