[TYPO3-ect] CCF Common Category Framework

[David Toshack]

Elmar Hinz wrote:
> David Toshack wrote:
> 
>> I'm  thinking maybe the pagetree would be enough for a central module.
>> Maybe with some sort of configuration (pageTS?), to show or hide certain
>> doctypes or tables in the pagetree?
> 
> Meanwhile I have build a new navigation frame for the categories, so
> that the Tree can be adapted. Category trees get their own mounts.
> Categories contain only categories, so that there is no need do more
> configuratin here. There shouldn't be other types.
hmm I'm not convinced there shouldn't be the option to include other
hierarchical records within the tree. Like pages; or even products as in
tx_commerce. Since this category implementation would also be a
framework for other records that wish to include categories I think this
would be quite useful to be able to toggle the inclusion of other
hierarchical items. I am all for a shared navigation interface that has
the option of being a pagetree, filetree _and_ category navigation
interface since they are fundamentally the same thing.

> Anybody who is interested can ask me for a snapshot of the current
> development state as t3X file.
Any chance of it going into TYPO3xdev?

>> I'm not sure how much of this should be an extension and how much would
>> require core modifications. It will be interesting to get some input
>> from Franz & Chi. Elmar has been in contact with them both in the DAM
>> newsgroup. Franz has done some great work on the tx_graytree extension.
>> And Chi, in tx_dam_catedit.
> 
> I exchanged mails with Franz. Chi didn't answer upon the posting in DAM.
Do you have any specific questions you could send directly to either
Franz or Chi? Elmar if we get what you have so far into TYPO3xdev maybe
we could work with both Franz and Chi in merging the three. Would you
like me to start a Global Categories wiki page to jot down some ideas?

> There is no documentation for graytree, wich makes it extremley
> difficult to get started with it. It references tx_commerce as usage
> example, but tx_commerce wasn't published. For trying to understand it's
> usage I a use a "tutor extension", which may help future users.
> 
> 
>>> Can we create new doktypes on extension level or do we need to
>>> hack/XCLASS core files for this?
> 
>> I have thought about this solution in the past. I think its a great idea
>> along with a pages_mm table. As far as I know this would require some
>> core changes, which we are probably due for anyway in the coming 4.x
>> versions.
> 
> It was easy to create category doctypes by TCA, pages is just a table
> like other tables. Doktypes seem currently limited to 256 (I don't see a
> reason for this.) So I will choose 200 for the standard category.
I'm guessing the reason would be that it is a multiple of 8. 256
characters uses the same amount of memory as 200 characters. However,
200 is a more user friendly cut off.

>>> Well, this looks a number to big for my project.
>> IPTC XMP support is on the DAM roadmap[1]. Since XMP is a specification
>> of RDF, maybe this could be a possibility for the future? I'm sure its
>> quite a while off, but this would also bring us closer to having Topic
>> Maps[2] be imported to categories too. With a little work, this would
>> also be a great way of managing country, zone and language meta data
>> from outside sources.
>>
> 
> Please, don't expect me to build all this. It would need the
> participation of others.
Of course not  :-)  I am hoping who ever has suggested it for the DAM
roadmap can help out.

> Like the categories all this is "Metadata Stuff". Metadata need to be
> used by digital assets in form of files (DAM) as well as by data stored
> in form of relational database tables (typical extensions).
Categories by definition are really just a specific type of meta data
IMHO. Maybe meta data should be associated with the records themselves
rather than the actual category records, like DAM indexing. It does seem
to be getting a little out of scope but it may mean getting the help of
the core team later on.

> Unfortunately DAMs categories (and cat_edit) are build in or depened on
> DAM file management module. It would probably be the same with IPTC XMP,
> if it is on the DAMs roadmap.
IMHO files and records need to share some of this functionality.

> The different order would by right, so that metadata could be used by
> extensions without the DAM file manager beeing installed. I tried to ask
> Rene about this in DAM newsgroup, without answer yet.
Ah yes, exactly! We really need to get all parties involved. Maybe
direct emails are a better approach. I am aiming to form a closer
relationship with all developers in the hope of better extension
coordination. That's what we're all in here for anyway  :-)

>>>> DAM integration..... my impression is that DAM is about managing file
>>>> resources?????  Categorisation of file resources according to customised
>>>> or global categories is the same as for any other table.
>>> Yes, but DAM has already a buildin category tree, just like tt_news. If
>>> we don't do something special the user would need to decide which
>>> categories to use.  Hmmm ... that confuses the user ...
> 
>> Hmmm there has been some talk about merging the filetree into the
>> pagetree. Not sure if that will actually happen, but I would assume
>> these new global categories would fit well for both tx_dam and tt_news.
> 
> That is the idea of common categories. :-)
Agreed! Sounds like we are all on the same page.

> tt_news has a very enhanced category system. The access can be partly
> controlled by categories. That would also be an interesting feature for
> common categories. I have not planned that so far. But that is a point
> that needs to be regarded when using CCF with tt_news.
Maybe we need to get Rupert Germann involved too, no matter how small
the capacity. Maybe he can help with the access restrictions. Provided
we can get the right people involved in the right sections, with the
right organization we should all be able to work together on this. As I
mentioned above, this is the whole reason we are in this newsgroup.

Should we move your reStructuredText document to the wiki to allow the
relevant parties to make their contributions? ... And maybe merge the
keepers from the wiki page into your wordpress version? Or would you
like to introduce a new thread for a specific categories topic? Do we
need a new newsgroup for categories?


Cheers,
David