cms织梦内容标签是哪个_CMS内容组织结构：树，构面，标签
cms织梦内容标签是哪个
This article discusses the state of trees as a content organization structure in modern CMS as opposed to other approaches.
本文讨论了树状状态作为现代CMS中与其他方法相对的内容组织结构。
Update 18th Feb, 2015: This post got a reply from Contentful, which you can read here.
2015年2月18日更新：这篇文章得到了Contentful的回复，您可以在此处阅读。
For several years I have been interested in content repositories as a key aspect of modern CMS. With “modern”, I mean CMS that are not just “page management systems” but CMS that actually manage content, thereby enabling authors to reuse their content on different devices and even different applications. This interest culminated in the creation of PHPCR and its reference implementation Jackalope. In this spirit, I was very intrigued by services like prismic.io and contentful.com that essentially provide a content repository as a service. I was especially impressed by Prismic’s UI. But when evaluating these systems, I noticed a surprising trend: they do not leverage trees, neither as a native storage concept nor as a visualization concept. Instead, they for the most part rely on flat structures with tagging. My gut feeling was telling me that this was a mistake, especially when managing larger content repositories. At the same time I wondered: “Am I just a dinosaur that is missing the ark?”.
几年来，我一直对内容存储库感兴趣，这是现代CMS的关键方面。 所谓“现代”，是指CMS不仅是“页面管理系统”，而且是实际管理内容的CMS，从而使作者能够在不同的设备甚至不同的应用程序上重用其内容。 这种兴趣在创作的高潮PHPCR及其参考实现中Jackalope 。 本着这种精神，我非常喜欢的服务感兴趣prismic.io和contentful.com基本上提供内容库的服务。 Prismic的UI给我留下了特别深刻的印象。 但是在评估这些系统时，我注意到了一个令人惊讶的趋势：它们既没有将树用作本地存储概念，也没有将其用作可视化概念。 取而代之的是，它们大多依赖带有标签的扁平结构。 我的直觉告诉我这是一个错误，特别是在管理较大的内容存储库时。 同时，我想知道：“我只是一只缺少方舟的恐龙吗？”。
I discussed the topic with Ekke at a conference last fall and after a short Twitter exchange we decided to write down our thoughts. I found additional inspiration in an article by David Weinberger who helped put my feelings in a historical context as well as explaining the advantages of different approaches to content organization, namely: trees, facets and tags. Additionally, I also want to mention the concept of references since they are supported by Contentful.
去年秋天，我在一次会议上与Ekke讨论了这个话题，经过短暂的Twitter交流后，我们决定写下我们的想法。 大卫·温伯格 ( David Weinberger )的一篇文章给我带来了更多启发，他将我的感受带入了历史背景，并解释了内容组织的不同方法的优势，即：树木，刻面和标签。 另外，我还想提及引用的概念，因为它们由Contentful支持。
介绍 (Introduction)
Trees are the oldest of the methods mentioned above. The reason for this is likely that they work great in the physical world, ie. good old paper books, as they require no content duplication. That is, every piece of information is placed in exactly one place. The fact that trees have been around so long also gives them one distinct advantage: everyone knows how they work. Facets and tags, however, very much leverage the new possibilities of the digital age in that content can easily live in several places at once. But just because trees predate the digital age does not make them a dinosaur waiting for extinction. Let us first look at some of the advantages and disadvantages of facets and tags.
树木是上述最古老的方法。 这可能是因为它们在物理世界中表现出色。 好的旧纸质书籍，因为它们不需要内容重复。 也就是说，每条信息都恰好放置在一个地方。 树木已经存在很久了，这也给它们带来了一个明显的优势：每个人都知道它们的工作方式。 但是，方面和标签在很大程度上可以利用数字时代的新可能性，因为内容可以轻松地同时存在于多个地方。 但是，仅仅因为树木早于数字时代就不能使它们成为等待灭绝的恐龙。 让我们首先看一下方面和标签的一些优点和缺点。
标签 (Tags)
Lets start with the latter. Tags likely gained the most popularity with the advent of blogs. Fundamentally, blogs are otherwise a flat, chronologically sorted list of content pieces. Tags added an effective way to denote the main focus topics of a given article while also providing a useful filter criteria. By combining multiple tags in a filter it becomes possible in many cases to quickly drill down. Moreover, as each tag essentially stands on its own, adding a new tag is trivial. Simply begin using the new tag and it exists. This is simpler than a tree structure, where it is necessary to decide where in the tree a new topic best fits.
让我们从后者开始。 随着博客的出现，标签可能获得了最广泛的关注。 从根本上说，博客是按时间顺序排列的内容清单。 标签添加了一种有效的方式来表示给定文章的主要关注主题，同时还提供了有用的过滤条件。 通过在过滤器中组合多个标签，在许多情况下可以快速向下钻取。 而且，由于每个标签本质上都是独立存在的，因此添加新标签很简单。 只需开始使用新标签，它就会存在。 这比树形结构简单，树形结构需要确定树中最适合新主题的位置。
As such tags are also useful for allowing crowd sourced categorization. But here we also come to the main pain point of tagging: its inherently messy. Trying to stay on top of synonyms and abbreviations and typos that unintentionally place content in different “buckets” requires almost as much work as placing a topic into a tree structure and can lead to confusion when tags are later renamed/merged. Another approach can, of course, be to strictly control the creation of tags to prevent these issues from occurring but then one loses a lot of the reasons why tags are useful. Furthermore, homonyms cause major problems with tagging. For example the tag “apple” could relate to a fruit or to the computer company. A common solution is to then introduce tags like “apple fruit”, but with that tags lose a lot of their elegance. This brings us back to exactly why tags are so popular on blogs. Blogs were originally used for personal digital diaries, thereby reducing the risk of synonyms by different authors causing duplicate tags for the same topic. Also they usually focused on a specific topic which thereby reduced the chances of homonyms.
这样的标签对于允许众包分类也很有用。 但是在这里，我们还遇到了标记的主要痛点：其固有的混乱性。 试图停留在同义词，缩写和错别字之上，后者无意中将内容放置在不同的“存储桶”中，所需的工作几乎与将主题放置在树形结构中一样多，并且可能在以后重命名/合并标签时引起混乱。 当然，另一种方法可以是严格控制标签的创建，以防止发生这些问题，但是这样一来，就会丢失很多使用标签的原因。 此外，同音异义词会引起标记方面的主要问题。 例如，标签“苹果”可能与水果或计算机公司有关。 常见的解决方案是引入诸如“苹果果实”之类的标签，但是这样的标签失去了很多优雅的外观。 这使我们回到了为什么标签在博客上如此受欢迎的确切原因。 博客最初用于个人数字日记，从而降低了不同作者引起同一个主题重复标记的同义风险。 同样，他们通常专注于特定主题，从而减少了同音异义词的机会。
刻面 (Facets)
Facets have become especially popular in e-commerce sites to allow users to filter based on multiple dimensions in the order they prefer. However, they basically require content to be somewhat structured to be effective. Whereas chapters in a book usually just provide a title following a lot of text, for facets, one should further work to split the text into more structured pieces of information. It is not necessary to have the same structure for all pieces of content, however. Furthermore, just like with tags, with facets it becomes possible to find the same piece of information in different places.
构面已在电子商务站点中变得特别流行，以允许用户根据自己喜欢的顺序基于多个维度进行过滤。 但是，它们基本上要求内容必须具有一定的结构才能有效。 尽管书中的各章通常仅提供大量文本后面的标题，但从各个方面来说，应该进一步进行工作，以将文本分成更多结构化的信息。 但是，不必对所有内容都具有相同的结构。 此外，就像标签一样，有了方面，就可以在不同的地方找到相同的信息。
Facets are specifically useful when it is very hard to anticipate which strategy someone will use to find the given piece of content. Going back to the e-commerce example – one user might focus on the price first, then on the color and then on the fabric with the next user potentially wanting to drill down in a totally different order. Furthermore facets are great because they allow non domain expert users to discover the relevant dimensions simply by looking at the left over facets as they add filters. As a content provider, it also becomes quite easy to offer new facets by simply starting to fill in some new “facets”. That being said it is also possible to run into issues with homonyms when searching across different content types, but its much less likely than with tags. For example a status property might be a numeric value for some pieces of content and or a simple flag for others. In this case, with some additional work, it might even be possible to translate the flag to a numeric value on the fly.
当很难预测某人将使用哪种策略查找给定的内容时，构面特别有用。 回到电子商务示例–一个用户可能首先关注价格，然后关注颜色，然后关注织物，而下一个用户可能希望以完全不同的顺序向下钻取。 此外，构面非常好，因为它们使非领域专家用户只需在添加过滤器时查看左侧构面即可发现相关维度。 作为内容提供商，只需开始填写一些新的“方面”，就可以很容易地提供新的方面。 话虽如此，当搜索不同的内容类型时，也可能会遇到同音异物的问题，但与标签相比，可能性要小得多。 例如，状态属性可能是某些内容的数字值，或者是其他内容的简单标志。 在这种情况下，通过一些额外的工作，甚至可能会即时将标志转换为数字值。
参考文献 (References)
References have also been around for a long time. With the digital age, it has become much easier to follow a reference. Since the pre-digital age, they’ve been a popular addition to physical books in the form of footnotes and indexes. On the web, a reference is just a click away and can even be inlined if needed (for example, browsers inline image references). Images, or rather media content in general, are a good example of references used in many CMS.
参考文献也已经存在很长时间了。 随着数字时代的发展，遵循参考变得更加容易。 自前数字时代以来，它们已经以脚注和索引的形式成为物理书籍的流行补充。 在网络上，只需单击一下即可获得参考，甚至可以根据需要内嵌参考(例如，浏览器内嵌图像参考)。 图像，或者一般来说是媒体内容，是许多CMS中使用的参考的一个很好的例子。
Often text content and media content is kept in separate storage containers that are just connected via references. This is likely because creation of media content requires different skills and resources while also requiring significantly more storage, which means the technical challenges are also not the same. As such, media content is often reused, hence the logical use of references. References are a very powerful tool from which one can effectively build not only tree but also graph structures. But this additional power also means it becomes very hard to visualize and therefore comprehend the actual data structure without actively traversing it. Querying a graph structure tends to require expert knowledge and providing a performant experience is also a non trivial challenge solved only by very specialized systems.
通常，文本内容和媒体内容保存在仅通过引用连接的单独存储容器中。 这可能是因为创建媒体内容需要不同的技能和资源，同时还需要大量存储空间，这意味着技术挑战也不尽相同。 这样，媒体内容经常被重用，因此引用的逻辑使用。 引用是一种非常强大的工具，通过它不仅可以有效地构建树，而且可以有效地构建图结构。 但是，这种额外的功能也意味着很难可视化，因此无法主动遍历实际数据结构。 查询图结构往往需要专业知识，并且提供高性能的体验也是仅由非常专业的系统才能解决的不小的挑战。
树木 (Trees)
Which brings us back to trees. The main drawback of trees is, to some extent, also their biggest advantage: the rigid allocation of content to a single place in the tree. This requires careful planning and can lead to iffy situations where one piece of content could be placed in multiple categories. For example, an article about the economics in sports, could be placed under “economics” or “sports”. This can of course be solved via references, but as pointed out above, the overuse of references as a means to structure content can cause problems.
这使我们回到了树木。 树木的主要缺点在某种程度上也是它们的最大优点：将内容刚性分配到树中的单个位置。 这需要进行仔细的计划，并且可能导致将其中的内容放置在多个类别中的混乱情况。 例如，有关体育经济学的文章可以放在“经济学”或“体育”之下。 这当然可以通过引用来解决，但是如上所述，过度使用引用作为结构化内容的一种方式可能会引起问题。
On the other hand, this rigidness also gives things a lot of clarity. Most importantly, trees can be used as a very simple way to model inheritance that is understandable even for non developers. In this way the location, the context of the content in the tree, provides an important piece of information. For example, placing an article under “sports” expresses that this article is about sports. But it can express multiple things on top of that. Going back to the above dilemma about the “economics in sports” article, placing the article in one or the other category can also be used to determine responsibility. That is, by placing it under “sports” it can also automatically assign rights to all the sports editors. Interestingly it can also help to bridge back to the physical world to, for example, determine where in the print version the article will appear.
另一方面，这种刚性也使事情变得更加清晰。 最重要的是，树可以用作建模继承的一种非常简单的方法，即使对于非开发人员而言也是可以理解的。 这样，位置(树中内容的上下文)提供了重要的信息。 例如，将文章放在“体育”下表示该文章与体育有关。 但它可以在此之上表达多种内容。 回到关于“体育经济学”文章的上述困境，将文章放在一个或另一个类别中也可以用来确定责任。 也就是说，通过将其置于“体育”之下，它也可以自动将权利分配给所有体育编辑。 有趣的是，它还可以帮助您回到现实世界，例如确定文章在印刷版本中的显示位置。
The categorization inside a tree also enables weighting of facets so to say. If I use economics vs. sports in the first dimension and the publication date as the second, I steer people towards the ideal way to explore the content. Is the emphasis of the content on giving a snapshot of information for a specific date or is it rather on the specific topic? Obviously in practice, most tree structures also support references and as I said before, references can be used to build tree structures themselves. But the true power of a tree structure lies in the context and the natural visualization they provide. Forcing as much content to remain within the limitations of a tree ensures that this metaphor remains useful, where as overusing references will mean that it becomes ineffective requiring a much more complicated visualization of a graph.
可以说，树内的分类还可以使构面加权。 如果我在第一维度中使用经济学与体育，而在第二维度中使用出版日期，那么我将引导人们走向探索内容的理想方式。 内容的重点是针对特定日期的信息快照还是针对特定主题？ 显然，在实践中，大多数树结构也支持引用，正如我之前所说，引用可用于自身构建树结构。 但是树结构的真正力量在于它们提供的上下文和自然可视化。 强制将尽可能多的内容保留在树的限制内可确保此隐喻仍然有用，因为过度使用引用将意味着它变得无效，因此需要更复杂的图形可视化。
tl; dr; (tl;dr;)
In summary, it becomes clear that all above mentioned systems have their advantages.
总而言之，很明显，上述所有系统都有其优点。
Tags are great for managing content structure that exhibits one or all of the below criteria:
标签非常适合管理满足以下一个或所有条件的内容结构：
- focused on a specific topic 专注于特定主题
- small data set 小数据集
- categorization can be done after content creation 内容创建后即可进行分类
Faceting is mostly useful for content with the following attributes:
构面对于具有以下属性的内容最有用：
- content is “structured” in the sense that different facets of the content can be sensible separated and be given attribute names 内容是“结构化的”，意思是可以将内容的不同方面合理地分开并赋予属性名称
- there is no singular way that users are expected to explore the content 并没有希望用户浏览内容的唯一方式
References or rather graphs are ideal when:
在以下情况下，引用或图形比较理想：
- the content creation is very distinct 内容创作非常独特
- the content itself is highly interrelated 内容本身是高度相关的
Finally, trees are ideal:
最后，树木是理想的：
- when most content fits into a rigid structure 当大多数内容适合刚性结构时
- when there are experts with sufficient amount of time to properly place content into the structure 当专家有足够的时间将内容正确放入结构中时
In practice, we of course see a lot of hybrid systems. That is, many blogs support tagging along with categories (essentially a tree with a depth of one). Many tree storage systems also support references which effectively also enable graphs.
在实践中，我们当然会看到很多混合系统。 也就是说，许多博客都支持带有类别的标记(本质上是一棵深度为一的树)。 许多树存储系统还支持有效地启用图形的引用。
结论 (Conclusion)
My personal takeaway is that any CMS managing any sizeable amount of data needs to support trees. Anything else will lead to an unmanageable mess. However, systems with smaller sets of content, especially with a smaller group of authors, can get away with tagging as well. Facetting only really works well with a system that stores content that is highly structured at least on a per node type basis. In this spirit, I maintain that repository as a service providers will need to provide full support for trees, both to structure as well as visualized content, in order to become able to handle larger volumes of data. Faceting will also need to be provided if they intend to make inroads from doing more than just serving large chunks of text and media content.
我的个人收获是，管理大量数据的任何CMS都需要支持树。 其他任何事情都会导致混乱。 但是，具有较少内容集的系统(尤其是具有较小作者群的系统)也可以摆脱标记。 Facetting只能在至少按每个节点类型存储高度结构化内容的系统上才能很好地工作。 本着这种精神，我认为存储库作为服务提供者将需要为树提供全面的支持，以进行结构化和可视化内容的处理，以便能够处理大量数据。 如果他们打算从提供大量文本和媒体内容的功能上有所作为，则还需要提供方面功能。
I would like to thank Ekke and David for reviewing this article and proposing various improvements
翻译自: https://www.sitepoint.com/cms-content-organization-structures-trees-vs-facets-vs-tags/
cms织梦内容标签是哪个