How can I do this in UR?

[jjinwi]

I'm trying to make a competitive info kbase with UR.

I have a document (or web page or ...) in UR.

The article has info about Company A and Company B.

I set-up an item attibute called "Company" and list all the companies -- hoping to assign both companies to the doc.

But UR only lets me select 1 company.

(I guess I want to assign multiple "categories" to an item)

Are their any work arounds???

Any other ideas???

I want to quickly find info by company, or product or ....

Thanks!

[magnus]

You can put your tags (keywords) in the item notes pane, which is searchable.

[xja]

You could type both company names in an attribute, separated by a space and then it would at least show up in a search for either company, but the only way to "browse" to it is to setup a search for Company A and a search for Company B.

Others might suggest creating an info item for each company and then linking to each. That would be good for browsing but it would only show up in a search if you searched Lineage specifically. Linking just doesn't work so well for classification purposes.

What would be nice to have is a hierarchical search (where a search which is a child of another search would apply its criteria to the results of the parent search) so you could set the attributes of an info item (so it is searchable) and then create various virtual hierarchies using search items. Then it would be easy to browse and easy to search. You could create a hierachy by Company>Product and create another by Product>Company, for instance.

[alx]

[Others might suggest creating an info item for each company and then linking to each. That would be good for browsing but it would only show up in a search if you searched Lineage specifically. Linking just doesn't work so well for classification purposes.]

Actually, I think this would technically be the "right" way to go about, i.e. creating a folder item for each company and entering "logical links" (clones) of each item related to more than one company.

That's the point of logical links / clones, i.e. to present relationships that don't fit a strict hierarchy, such as many-to-many.

I have used this in my contacts management, maintaining contacts both under a dedicated contacts folder as well as under the specific projects they are involved with. It really saves me time as well as maintaining my project concept.

alx

[xja]

Originally posted by alx
[Others might suggest creating an info item for each company and then linking to each. That would be good for browsing but it would only show up in a search if you searched Lineage specifically. Linking just doesn't work so well for classification purposes.]

Actually, I think this would technically be the "right" way to go about, i.e. creating a folder item for each company and entering "logical links" (clones) of each item related to more than one company.

Yes, I would guess that is what Kinook had in mind when designing UR. I like using linking for some things, attributes for other things. They just need to figure out how to better bridge the gap between links and attributes.

In this case, using links instead of attributes may make the most sense. It reallly depends on how you expect to typically recall the information... ie, browsing or searching.

[igoldsmid]

I think it would be best if UR dev could make it such that multiple values could be selected from any one Attribute - perhaps they would then appear in the attribute field as a horizontal list, comma or semi-colon separated - but could be searched for within the same Attribute using an AND/OR expression. InfoHandler has this kind of category system and it works EXCEEDINGLY well....

Otherwise, the workaround I once used was to create multiple Attributes merely in order to select multiple values for what was logically the "same" Attribute: e.g. Attributes called; Company 1, Company 2, Company 3 etc... - and each Attribute would have the same choice of values, and in my case, I created them as a picklist, where I had to choose from that list rather than add them on the fly...

For me, the linked info-items approach ended up being totally confusing and I couldn't see the trees for the forest so to speak...

I think if there is to be heavy use of clones/linked items UR should provide an option to create VERY MUCH GREATER visual differentiation in the tree between virtual & 'real' info-items..

[kinook]

Implemented in v5.2.