Item Attribute Question
 

Briefly, and I hope not too confusingly, I have made an item attribute labeled "TAG," and have been adding values steadily to various items on the tree (e.g., "Important," "Follow Up," "Research," and so on).

If I want to do a search on TAG on a particular item that includes two or more values, say "Important" and "Follow UP," how can this be done, without having to create a new TAG called both "Important" and "Follow UP"?

If I add two values in the Item Attribute Pane in TAG, this creates a new TAG (for example, "Important" and "Follow UP"). It would be nice if in the Item Attribute Pane we could simply add values to each Item and separate these values by perhaps a semi-colon or the like.

Re: Item Attribute Question
 

First, when you created the attribute TAG did you check Auto-complete (if not, it can be done after the fact), this builds an index of values for this attribute - it's this index which provides the drop-down list of existing values during data entry and the drop-down list for the Value column in Advanced Search.

Essentially, your TAG attribute is just a user-defined text-string and you can separate multiple vaules as you see fit, but the important thing is checking the Auto-complete option for the Atttribute. This will provide the list of existing values and allow you to force consistency when assigning (or creating) multiple values for a given TAG.

EDIT:
You can pre-poulate the values that will be present in this drop-down list by typing the desired values into the List Values text area of the Attribute, just leave the Restrict checkbox unchecked if you want the list to "grow" from new values entered during subsequent data entry.

pre-poulate?
 

I'll try again, and let's avoid using Ultra Recallese (i.e., the wooden "explanations" characteristic of the UR "help" file).

I have an Item Attribute called "TAG."

I have the "Auto-complete values from other items" checked.

I have added so far (and more will be added as time goes on) certain values for TAG: let's call them for now A, B, C, D, and E.

In the Item Attribute pane for a certain Item on the Data Explorer tree I want to combine both the values of, say, A and B.

The drop down menu displays all the values already added, of course (A,B,C, D, and E), but apparently if two or more values are added after TAG, say A and B, that becomes a new value. What would be better if we could just simply add values on the fly, so to speak. Apparently this can't be done.

Thanks.

Re: pre-poulate?
 

The index that is built when you check Auto-complete is an index that allows for ALL values, but only displays UNIQUE values in the drop-down list.

Item values for your TAG attribute:

A
B
C
A, B
A, B, C

When you create a new Item the values available for TAG are presented in the drop-down list, you can choose from these existing values or give the new Item a new value (D, E). This new value is added on-the-fly and will be present in the drop-down list for the next new Item you create.

If you want to change the TAG value for an exisitng Item, you can choose from the drop-down list of exisitng values, or create a new value (F).

From your original post it sounds like you want to track the evolving status of an Item, perhaps I misunderstood.

tfjern, I think I see the database concept that is giving you some trouble in your database design. Seems you have empirically figured this out but maybe this explaination will help you avoid some future frustration.


The attribute TAG is of type String (for text information). TAG's value will be anything you can type in the Attributes Value box.
An attribute can only have 1 value...thus the value of Item3's TAG = Important; Followup
It does NOT contain 2 values (value= Important and value= Followup)

Search- UR will parse the Value of TAG into keywords. So a search of "TAG contains keyword Followup" will return items 2,3,4,5.
A search of "TAG contains keyword Important AND TAG contains keyword Followup" will return items 3,4,5.

"Auto-complete values from other items" checked- This creates a pull down list of the values that you entered FOR OTHER ITEMS. So the selection for TAG so far is 'Important', 'Followup', 'Important; Followup', 'Important Followup', and 'Important Followup'<
Perhaps after consideration, you might revisit your premise of only using one attribute to label (tag) your items. ie add an attribute= Followup of type Yes/No.

Hope this isn't too wooden or too presumptive, I do have a tin ear......

Thanks, for filling in the blanks.

Exploring the Search function:
if you standardized on the value shown for Item-3, then a search of "TAG equals Important" should only return Item-1.

if you wanted ALL the Items that have the same value as Item-3 (or any compound value), then the EQUALS comparator and the drop-down list should make it easy to search for any compound value.

Parse?
 

One final attempt, and if I still can't communicate what I am trying to say, then I will declare defeat and depart the field.

1. I have created an "Item Attribute" called "TAG."

2. I have the "Auto-complete values from other items" checked.

3. I have added so far certain separate values for TAG: let's call them for now values A, B, C, D, and E. That's five separate values.

4. Let's say I add a new "Info Item" in the "Data Explorer," and then insert a "TAG" to the Attribute" column in the "Item Attribute Pane."

5. In the "Value" column of the same pane I have a drop down menu that already has five separate choices for "TAG": A, B, C, D, and E.

6. Let's say I type "A" and "E," which (unfortunately) become a new value ("A E"), which is NOT what I want to happen.

7. Instead, it would be nice if in UR I could type "A" and then a semi-colon (comma, bar, two spaces, whatever), then type "E", which would NOT create a new value (namely, "A E," that is, combining two existing values). If I were to type "B" and "H", separated by a semi-colon (comma, whatever), I would have entered an old TAG value ("B") and added a new one ("H"), and NOT a new value called "B H". Apparently this can't be done in UR, or am I missing something?

I think you would like to be able to make multiple, non-contiguous selections from the drop-down list. In some other programs, you can hold down the CTRL key while clicking the desired names in the list. Is this what you want to do?

I too woulld like to be able to do this, but I am afraiid it is not possible with UR (yet?). My work-around, as you alluded to earlier, is to have two or more attributes populated with your list and to select the combinations individually, one from each attribute.

Jon

Seems reasonable to want to be able to arbitrarily tag/attribute as one pleases.

Thanks for this insight, I've been trying to understand the goal.

Wondering, as things currently stand in UR would this accomplish the goal:

In the Data Explorer create an Item called Tags, it's children are the individual values for TAG. For each Item you want to "tag", Link that Item to the desired child Items under the Tags Item. By working thru the Alt-L interface you can select the non-contiguous Items you desire.

Downside, creating and linking to the "tags" is more laborous than the indexed drop-down list. Essentially each Item can have many tags, and tag can have many items.

Is there another way to achieve these one-to-many relationships?

alternativelly, you could use user defined keywords, say TAG_Important, TAG_Followup, etc, and use the item keywords pane to add/edit/remove/search, or search and click on "Search only user-defined keywords" ...

In Conclusion ...
 

To put a merciful end to this long, confusing thread: UR currently does not contain the feature discussed above: namely,

... after creating an attribute in the Item Attributes pane, separate values can't be listed one after another after the attribute (separated by, say, a semi-colon or the like).

Perhaps Kinook could include this feature in future editions. It certainly would be convenient.

should be doable
http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/...-datatype.html

Re: In Conclusion ...
 

or simply

I really appreciate the power and features of Ultra Recall Pro.

However, I think sometimes that all these features requiring under-the-hood tinkering get in the way of the primary functions (as I see them) of URp:

* Capture of data
* Organization of data
* Location of data

My reaction to this thread is "I don't want to have to program my PIM! I just want to be able to willy-nilly dump data into it, organize that data when I have time, and be able to find the data when I need it".

I feel like it's easy to get lost in (almost required) tweaking URp, which dilutes the original purpose of the software: information, knowledge, and document management.

I find my efforts to get into URp thwarted because it's difficult to use for management of information, knowledge, and documents "out-of-the-box"... I launch URp expecting to be able to easily capture data, but end up having to tweak.

Amen to That!
 

UR is indeed a powerful piece of software, but it is so frustratingly user-unfriendly, it requires constant tweaking to get it to do what you want, which it usually does, eventually, after much tweaking or roaming the forums in search of answers, but the average consumer (not the geeks, of course) does not have the time to fiddle around with the options or try to wade through the user-unfriendly "help" file.

To make matters worse, when you ask a simple question on this forum, you frequently get responses that are virtually incomprehensible. Does this help answer the simple question I posed at the top of the thread? Namely,

http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/...-datatype.html

That's why a few years ago some of us begged Kinook to provide more user-friendly videos and screenshots that display step-by-step the many wonderful things UR can do (not the out-of-date and superficial ones currently online). Kinook, before the recent economic meltdown, even sponsored a contest, in which users could submit videos and win a prize (hopefully not judged by the programmer, a geek's geek).

Any chance this contest could be resurrected?

I'm glad I am not alone in my feelings that URp is an extremely capable but user-unfriendly piece of software.

What I loved about EverNote 2.2.1 was that it had a very short learning curve and virtually "disappeared" once you started using it... The technology got out of the way and just enabled me to do what I needed without calling attention to itself.

My wish is that URp would to do the same thing -- get itself out of the way ("disappear") and let me capture, manage, and locate my information, knowledge, and documents.

How can we move forward?

UR is extremelly customizable, and that's the price we pay for what you call "user-unfriendly piece of software".

I'm very happy to pay that price!

There are dozens of PIM softwares which are great, but if there is something you'd like to have different way than developer coded, you are stuck with that, for better or worse.

If you find UR unfriendly, I'd suggest you to try different PIM, might suit your bill better.

Sigh!
 

That's the ticket, Geek?, encourage customers to go elsewhere if they have legitimate complaints or the audacity to make suggestions about a fine product so it becomes even better and more user-friendly.

At its heart UR is a user-interface for the mySQL relational database. And while it is not required to know this, or to know anything about relational database concepts to get up and running in UR, once you start to move beyond the surface an understanding of these concepts does become helpful. I don't see how Kinook can possibly include a satisfactory introduction to these concepts in a help file for this program.

In this particular case, there were four different people working to understand and resolve the problem presented. This post currently stands at (300) views, which tells me that someone beyond the handful of participants may benefit from this discussion.

As was mentioned by $Bill, the issue presented is a common quandry faced when developing a database structure, namely how best to deal with a one-to-many relationship. Apparently there are three differnt avenues available to resolve this quandry:

_ use of the Auto-complete attribute option to build the drop-down pick list. Here you build compound values (the many) which can be stored in a single Attribute (the one), where a Search on any one value will reveal the many places it is assigned.

_use of the Data Explorer to build an internal table of values (the Tags branch) and the Alt-L interface to assign/create the one-to-many relationship. This relationship can be viewed on the TAGS side thru the Data Explorer, or on the Item side thru the Ctrl-6 Parents Pane.

_use of Keywords, which is a variation on the previous option.

_not mentioned was use of the Logical data type, where you bring "the many" choices into "the one" record.

Each of these avenues have an upside and a downside, which avenue is chosen will depend on the size of the list of values you wish to assign.

Where is the best place for a discussion such as this, I don't know. I will say that I benefited greatly from the time when software publishers made available extensive printed documentation, with in-depth discussions of database concepts and numerous "for examples", and still required an active user forum for further support.

Re: Sigh!
 

IMHO, you dont have legitimate complaint. And not the first time.

It was more or less obvious that what you were asking about is not possible at the moment in UR, and Bill already mentioned it twice very clearly. The rest of us were trying to give our best answers about possible way to immitate the feature you desire. Nevertheless, you still complain, not only abut the fact that feature is not present, but also about the "quality" of our genuine help. Please accept my appology for my "geeky" anwers. If you don't want to see them, feel free to add me to your ignore list.

Over-reaction
 

1. I started this thread to ascertain whether or not a certain feature was possible in UR, nothing more, nothing less.

2. Thanks to the earnest efforts of several forum contributors, it has become apparent that UR still lacks this feature, thus, the thread has been moved by Kinook to the "UR Suggestions" department. This feature lack may have been obvious to some at the very outset, but not to customers like me, hence the tread and my question.

3. Unfortunately, often explanations made by forum contributors are somewhat hard to follow, at least to slow learners like myself. I apologize for my obtuseness.

4. It has already been well established by many customers that UR itself and the "help" file in particular are relatively user-unfriendly (assuming UR hopes to win a wider audience of customers, which we all hope, of course). The occasional complaint for better online videos and the like are being done out of affection for UR and its future sales, not out of any malice toward the product.

5. Somebody on this forum has a big chip on his shoulder.

Re: Over-reaction
 

and someone else enjoys knocking if off ;-)

Re: Over-reaction
 

Really?
From you first post:
Would that be 'how' as in -- in what way, by what means, by what method, in what manner?
ashwken nicely summarises those responses....and yet you seemed to become agitated with the helpful replies to your post. Now I understand, you didn't want any help, your weren't trying to understand....This is not a "geek speak" problem.

Please step off the soapbox. Your ongoing attempts at saving UR from itself (and us "geeks") seen disingenuous and are almost certainly counterproductive to that purpose. The only thing that is "well established" is that you (and a few others) are having trouble using UR as-well-as-you-would-like and you propose that writing a "friendly" help file would help. Ok, I heard you, Kinook has heard you....repeatedly, time after time, over and over, post after post, day after day, month after month.....Am I making myself clear?

Oh, if you want a simple, single purpose database -- There's an app for that (TM).....and UR remains the best-of-the-best for the rest of us.

If You Say So!
 

So occasionally complaining in the forum about the "help" file and prodding (OK, kind of nagging) Kinook to provide better online videos of the product is in your opinion evidence of disingenuousness, apparently in a cunning plot to undermine UR sales?

Then why is my name listed twice (both my initials and real name) on the testimonials page, where I praise UR in glowing terms (and still do, all the time, except for the two you-know-whats). Is that some form of disingenuousness, too?

OK, I'll "step off my soapbox" and never mention the help file or online videos again.

P.S.: This thread has gotten kind of weird. It started out as a question about Item Attributes and deteriorated into suspicions about motives.

Sounds to me like you're looking for a multi-value attribute. To my knowledge, this is not supported by URP. Currently, an attribute can have only one value. This single value may consist of any text string, or anything else that URP supports in the Attribute dialog.

That said, I would welcome - nay relish - multi-value attributes.

Roadmap?

- Bal