Message-ID: <4280CAEF.5060202@namesys.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:53:35 -0700
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Foldiak <Peter.Foldiak@st-andrews.ac.uk>
CC: sean.mcgrath@propylon.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       reiserfs-list@namesys.com
Subject: Re: file as a directory
References: <2c59f00304112205546349e88e@mail.gmail.com>	 <41A1FFFC.70507@hist.no> <41A21EAA.2090603@dbservice.com>	 <41A23496.505@namesys.com>  <1101287762.1267.41.camel@pear.st-and.ac.uk> <1115717961.3711.56.camel@grape.st-and.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1115717961.3711.56.camel@grape.st-and.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 6618
Lines: 146

I agree with the below in that sometimes you want to see a collection of
stuff as one file, and sometimes you want to see it as a tree, and that
file format browsers can be integrated into file system browsers to look
seamless to users.

A quibble: A name is just a means to select a file; he is completely
wrong to think that file browsers will eliminate filenames.

Hans

Peter Foldiak wrote:

>Back in November 2004, I suggested on the linux-kernel and reiserfs
>lists that the Reiser4 architecture could allow us to abolish the
>unnatural naming distinction between directories/files/parts-of-file
>(i.e. to unify naming within-file-system and within-file naming) in an
>efficient way.
>I suggested that one way of doing that would be to extend XPath-like
>selection syntax above the (XML) file level.
>(See the archive of the discussion starting at
>http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0411.3/0044.html
>Wed Nov 24 2004 - 04:21:13 EST.)
>
>ITworld now has an interesting article by Sean McGrath on a very similar
>idea, mentioning the XML OASIS Open Document Format. What do you think?
>
> Peter Foldiak
>
>Here it is:
>
>--
>
>ITworld
>
>http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/1246/nls_ebizbooks050510/
>
>Books/chapters and directories/files - dichotomies considered harmful
>ITworld.com, Ebusiness in the Enterprise 5/9/05
>
>Sean McGrath, ITworld.com
>
>The distinction between a full book and a mere chapter of a book, is a
>source of endless fascination for incurable information modellers like
>me.
>
>Obviously, at the logical level, the distinction is driven by the
>content itself. A book is a complete unit of stuff. A chapter, is a
>sub-division within the complete book. At the physical level, however,
>technology starts to influence the book/chapter distinction. A chapter
>boundary, for Microsoft Word users or Open Office users, is likely to be
>influenced by how big the underlying file gets. Large files take longer
>to load and get increasingly slower to work with in typical word
>processing environments. Our decisions about where to draw the chapter
>boundaries are influenced to some extent by technology limitations.
>
>If the physical constraints are not allowed to dictate the boundaries
>for chapters, then we can end up resorting to file naming conventions to
>split the content into manageable chunks e.g. chapter1_a, chapter1_b and
>so on. We might then decide to keep things clean by introducing a
>subdirectory for each chapter, putting the sub-chapters tidily away in
>their own little compartments.
>
>All is well with the world. Or is it? This is where things get
>interesting from an information management perspective. A full unit of
>work - a book - has now been split into bits that are navigable through
>a directory structure and bits that are navigable through an
>application. The result? You can use off-the-shelf tools to navigate
>your way through the directories. You can see the overall structure of
>the book by simply looking at the directory structure as a hierarchy.
>You can see that chapter 1 has a number of sub-chapters. However, that
>is as far as you can go. To dig any further into the structure of
>chapter 1, section A, you need to launch the editing application.
>
>What a pity.
>
>Why is it, that we have this hard and fast dichotomy between directory
>structure and file structure? Why is it that file system exploring
>utilities need to stop in their tracks when they hit things called
>'files'?
>
>As you have probably noticed, this artificial split can be breached in
>certain circumstances, at least to some extent. Graphics file formats
>are a good example. Many file system exploring tools know about, say,
>JPEG files and can display thumbnails of their contents.
>
>That is a start in the right direction but I think it needs to go a lot
>further if the artificial directory/file distinction is to be
>eradicated.
>
>Let us go back to the book example. Let us use Microsoft's OLE
>technology as an analogy. With OLE you can embed one thing in another.
>So for example, you can embed an Excel spreadsheet into a Word document
>file. Now, in your head, take that further. Imagine a world in which the
>file system explorer is the top level application. It manages a single,
>humungous file on the disk into which you embed documents, spreadsheets,
>databases etc. Each think you embed into the explorer can itself embed
>other things to any depth required.
>
>In such a world, directories/files have merged into one abstraction. The
>book author does not have to introduce artificial segmentation of the
>book into separate entities. In such a world, filenames become something
>of an oddity. What do you need filenames for? You would only really need
>a filename at the point where you decided to exchange information
>between systems A and B.
>
>Moreover, once the package of data is pasted into System B's file system
>explorer at some suitable point, the filename would be thrown away.
>
>Sounds interesting wouldn't you say? So why don't we have systems that
>work like that? There are, as ever, many reasons. One reason which was
>an issue some years ago, is ceasing to be an issue very quickly now.
>Obviously, in order to show the structure of a "file" a file system
>explorer needs to look inside the file format. If the file format is
>proprietary, then we can do nothing.
>
>Enter XML-based file formats like the OASIS Open Document Format[1]. The
>day is coming when file system explorers will be able to do for office
>documents, what they currently do for JPEGs. That is a start in the
>right direction. Eventually, I hope we will see the directory/file
>distinction begin to melt away.
>
>Technologies/applications that never quite made it to the mainstream
>such as OpenDoc[2] and FrameMaker[3] with its powerful Book/Chapter
>model, may yet have a second coming.
>
>[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/charter.php
>[2] http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/OpenDoc.html
>[3] http://www.adobe.com/products/framemaker/main.html
>
>Sean McGrath is CTO of Propylon. He is an internationally acknowledged
>authority on XML and related standards. He served as an invited expert
>to the W3C's Expert Group that defined XML in 1998. He is the author of
>three books on markup languages published by Prentice Hall. Visit his
>site at: http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com.
>
>
>
>
>  
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/