OpenMeta

Mr_Noodle wrote:I find the method to store tags is a bit risky and claims of "no secret API" are a bit misleading.

And, unless I've missed it (and apologies if I have), for no apparent reason those key concerns have never been directly addressed publicly by Ironic Software's OpenMeta developer(s). That was increasingly apparent (and frustrating) during discussions in Michael Tsai's infamous OpenMeta is a hack thread (and others).

In general, I usually recognize when responses are targeting specific points compared to ignoring (possibly unintentionally) or glossing over them (which implies some acknowledgement).

At best, there may be unofficial support that would have to be enabled via a hidden default.

Unless you change your current thinking, based on reasons like you've stated:

While none of this is final, there would probably have to be a real change in how OpenMeta stores its tags or in how the user is educated about the issues for me to change my stance.

Again, and maybe I've got the wrong impression, Ironic Software seems to be dodging those issues which they're at least partly responsible for.

Right now I'd feel very much like you if I were a developer considering OpenMeta support for my product(s). That's how I already feel as a potential OM end user.

I'm a noob, so am quite incapable of saying anything intelligent about OM from a dev POV. But as a humble end user, tagging has revolutionised my mac experience for the better, thanks to Ironic's "Leap" and "Yep". I'll offer virtual chocolate bars, virtual pizzas, virtual machiatos ... anything to encourage you to support OM.

But anyway seriously, it would help enormously. So yeah, please consider ...

sherkaner: I suggest you (actually anyone who is interested in this issue) read the thread linked by sjk above.

sjk: Thanks for posting the link and for your view. I do agree with Michael Tsai's points on this (and have had a brief email exchange with him about it). As you noted, his points were not very well addressed and there seemed to be some level of defensiveness/evasiveness which didn't sit well with me.

eN0ch: Thanks for your input but please understand this is not just a dev issue. It affects you as a user. There are risks involved with storing your tags using OpenMeta. If you are not aware of this, I recommend reading through the linked thread above. It's a bit technical but should give you a sense of the issues.

I will be posting something soonish which goes into far more detail. Right now, I'm trying to get the 2.3 beta out the door so it will probably be after that point.

Also, as pointed out earlier in this thread, Hazel as it stands now, can be used with OpenMeta. The tags are available in Spotlight (so you can filter on them) and a simple shell script (shown above) can be used to set the tags. Yes, the UI is not tailor-fit but it can be done.

Yeah, I followed that thread as it was going (I'm sherkaner on the Ironic forum as well)... I don't disagree that there is something here that should be addressed. I guess I've just come around to believing that it's not a technical solution, it's in how OpenMeta is explained. I guess I'm hoping that you can influence the Ironic guys, as much as I'd like to see you influenced; after all, if you see a problem here, it seems like that others will as well, and I as a user want to see OpenMeta supported as broadly as possible.

I'll have to try playing around with the commandline solution you mention, although it does make me very wary of relying on it (more wary than I am of OpenMeta) as I'm not confident enough in my shell-fu to avoid doing something that would cause large issues if I put a quote mark in the wrong place.

The issue at hand here is one of liability.

OpenMeta is piggybacking on Apple space and frankly I think everyone who chooses to employ OM should be notified of this. Would it deter me? Not at all, the benefits of systemwide tagging overcomes any detriment. It's about time that Apple moved people beyond the "folder" metaphor (which makes little sense and in the virtual computer world) and started moving down the road toward getting people to think about how they structure their data.

People are so ingrained with a "folders and these folders hold data" I watched many struggle with the "Smart Folder" concept. "You mean it doesn't actually hold anything?"

The next logic step is to eschew the folder paradigm and move toward an OS that presents data in a myriad of ways.

The developer needs to isolate themselves from increased support calls. You all should come together and create a boilerplate message for prospective users that states that to the effect OpenMeta is piggybacking on Apple namespace and absolute stability cannot be guaranteed. Let the end user decide if they're willing to accept the risk.

The more voices you all have about tagging means the more power you will have to sway Apple's thoughts on this. I think they are likely headed toward a solution of their own but do we want to way 5 years for 10.8 to add it or do we want Apple to make it more of a priority and put it in 10.7?

Paul,

Thanks for the comments. I've had a good look through the understandable ;-)

bits of that thread on the Ironic forum. At a basic level at least, I think I get that there's a measure of inherent risk in the OM dev path. And I think I can appreciate that this implies some risk to the longterm security of my tag data.

I guess my layman's response to all that - in the context of my established relationship with the Ironic guys - is that I'd like to be able to use OM to the max on my system, even if that means that I do so on a caveat emptor kind of basis. So my question (which may well reflect my ignorance of programming generally ... ) is: Would it be possible for Hazel (or any other app for that matter) to add full OM support as some kind of advanced setting, accompanied by warnings, disclaimers, etc? To me that could possibly make everyone (relatively!) happy ... Maybe??!

Mr_Noodle wrote:eN0ch: Thanks for your input but please understand this is not just a dev issue. It affects you as a user. There are risks involved with storing your tags using OpenMeta. If you are not aware of this, I recommend reading through the linked thread above. It's a bit technical but should give you a sense of the issues.

P.S. Michael Tsai has written on another Ironic thread that he'll go with the flow on OM, despite his reservations. (If I've understood him correctly.)

http://ironicsoftware.com/community/com ... e=1#Item_8

Not wanting to pester you or anything, but just hoping this might influence your thinking.

To clarify: I support Paul's decision, and if I were in his position I'd probably do the same. I do not believe that "com.apple.metadata" is a good location for primary tag storage. However, I'm in a somewhat different position because my app (EagleFiler) works differently from Hazel. EagleFiler maintains its own database-backed tag storage, so it would not be relying on OpenMeta to store user data. Rather, EagleFiler would mirror its tags to OpenMeta, just as it currently mirrors them to the Spotlight comments. Therefore, data entered in my app would not be at risk.

I still hope that Ironic will change to a more solid design for OpenMeta. And I would be open to collaborating with Paul and other developers if they'd like to use a location other than "com.apple.metadata" for tag storage and sharing.

--Michael Tsai

Mr_Noodle wrote:sjk: … As you noted, his points were not very well addressed and there seemed to be some level of defensiveness/evasiveness which didn't sit well with me.

And while I appreciate Tom's recent response (and others) he somehow manages to avoid commenting on the "secret API" point even though it was specifically mentioned again in Michael's post (which Tom's acknowledges) only an hour earlier, easily leaving me with another impression that: What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate -- successfully.

Edit: Just noticed Michael's new response to Tom, which I'm about to read …

Arguing about "secret API" is minutae IMO.

Tom has been fairly reasonable in trying to find a solution that is amenable to all
devs and end users included. He's contacted Apple for their thoughts and Apple
hasn't really responded either positively or negatively.

If OpenMeta was trampling Apple's space in an egregious manner I'm sure Apple would
have put the kibosh on it with speed.

I think it really boils down to risk/reward. OpenMeta delivers what tagging aficionados want
and they will seek out apps that support this desire but developers need to be insulated from
the potential underbelly which may have problems that need support.

As long as end users understand the ramifications of OpenMeta as it is currently deployed I believe
each developer has done his/her due diligence.

hmurchison: I must disagree with your assessment. Apple has already said (officially!) that what OpenMeta is doing is not supported. Tom is trying to get around this by saying that they didn't give him some sort of extra warning not to do it.

I do agree that it boils down to risk/reward. OpenMeta is currently taking risks in return for no reward. That is, there's a safer way that would provide all the same benefits. OpenMeta could easily provide real insulation, but instead relies on an undocumented backup system that some of us are skeptical about.

Ironic seems to be trying to prevent end users (and even developers) from understanding the ramifications of the current design. The "no secret API" point is an example of this. It's a non sequitur that makes it sound like what OpenMeta is doing is entirely legitimate. I don't think most end users understand this.

--Michael

mjt wrote:EagleFiler works differently from Hazel. EagleFiler maintains its own database-backed tag storage, so it would not be relying on OpenMeta to store user data.

To clarify for my benefit on this point: Does this mean that for Hazel it would be "all or nothing"? -- i.e. that Hazel would have to either rely on OpenMeta to store user data, or have nothing to do with OpenMeta? .. So no half-way solution possible?

To clarify for my benefit on this point: Does this mean that for Hazel it would be "all or nothing"? -- i.e. that Hazel would have to either rely on OpenMeta to store user data, or have nothing to do with OpenMeta? .. So no half-way solution possible?

It's not quite like that. You still can put tags and such into the comments. My issue is that there is a risk in putting them in OpenMeta. EagleFiler is a different type of program and has its own store so it can do some level of recovery should Apple decide to break things in a future OS release.

The change suggested by Michael for OpenMeta would eliminate the Apple risk and we are trying to get OpenMeta to incorporate it. We'll see what happens.

OK, understood. Thanks Paul.

Hi,

just a short question about the actual "implementation" of OpenMeta in Hazel.
I know - it's not really supported, but somewhere was stated that it should work with a rule: "Other - Tags" contain "mytag"

But it doesn't work for me. Is "Tags" the wrong category or wrong spotlight field to search? Or is "contain" wrong?

The tag was added with Fresh from Ironic

Thanks!