Rather than following a strict taxonomic hierarchy, a faceted categorization system enables objects to be classified according to a variety of qualities (or "attributes"). These "well-defined, mutually exclusive and collectively comprehensive qualities of a class or specialized topic" are known as facet characteristics. As an example, a library of books might be sorted by author, topic, date, or other facets.
When using faceted search systems, the facets are arranged in numerous ways, allowing the user to browse information along several pathways that correspond to different orderings of the facets. Traditional taxonomies, on the other hand, have a predefined hierarchy of categories.
During the Napster period, I spent a large amount of effort renaming and organizing music files.
My PC was running Linux at the time and I spent a lot of time in a shell browsing file structures. As a result, I invested some time and effort into keeping the system up to date, even going so far as to build a shell script to automate the construction of file structures for unclassified files.
Even as technology has evolved, my behaviors have remained the same. For some reason, I still perceive my music library as a collection of files and use iTunes in the "column browser" mode. Streaming material and searching a cloud library for tags (made using folksonomy) would be preferable to browsing by static, preset tiers of the organization if I were more current. Organizing my music hierarchically was the most efficient method for me while I was using Linux. Streaming services, whether social or cloud-based, are becoming more clever in how they evaluate the attributes of a song or artist, and this advantage is being lost in the music industry.
It's becoming more obsolete in other areas of my life, as well. It's difficult for me to come up with naming sequences for 3D Modeling Services that are consistent across projects and stages of development. My preference is for part names that have two letters and four digits at the beginning and finish. The part name is always followed by a brief description in the filename. "BK1008 Rack End. it" is the final result.
Autodesk Inventor uses the.it extension for part files in this case. The prefix "BK" refers to bicycles since this component is one of several I made for custom bike racks. A directory named "BK Bike Parts" has the part, as well as a variety of additional parts. In directories, parts are grouped into categories according to their initial use, although they are often repurposed or abandoned. For the most part, the descriptive labels that I offer them have a little real bearing on their actual component numbers. Often, a component is created with a certain shape in mind and given a name to reflect that. The name is a relic of an earlier era, which fades away with time. What we have here may be called the Theseus' paradox since it defies the expectations of most traditional nomenclature systems, including my own.
In five years, I have no clue what my file naming sequences will look like. I find Jordan Brandt's prediction on the demise of files, made by Autodesk's Technology Futurist, to be completely accurate. In his description, he depicts a future where certain information is saved in attribute tags, similar to Facebook picture tagging. I'm not sure about the ramifications. The user would, I believe, need to put up searchable tags to ensure reliable part retrieval in such a system. Like Facebook's face-scanning feature, I would hope that traits may be created predictively in the future.
My naming practices would be of little use at this time. If I want to locate a picture on Facebook, I don't have to seek in a certain folder or search for a specific filename, as Brandt points out. If you've got the right search tools, you won't have a problem locating them. A similar pattern is expected to emerge in my future designs, where their names are more closely linked to the features they have, rather than a random and tedious name sequence. In a bizarre phase, the 3D modeling software is projected to rise in relevance as more and more simple 3D printers are made available to the general public. With the help of 3D modeling software, creations can be brought to life in a matter of seconds. Then then, some players are going out of their way: Autodesk focuses on developing free software products, or Google gets rid of SketchUp. As Tinkercad's popularity grew, it decided to shift its focus to the professional market and sell it to Autodesk.
The biomedical, cinema, architectural, engineering, scientific, and video gaming sectors all use 3D modeling software. Open-source apps like Blender and AutoCAD sit well with more basic freeware.
In this last phase, we're seeing a picture that's a little more complicated. In the context of Google's recent re-prioritization and abandoning of non-priority sectors, the sale of SketchUp to Trimble is understandable and even profitable, but it still seems odd to depart this section just when it looks to be on the verge of a significant growth phase.
A more fascinating scenario is Autodesk, the business behind the iconic AutoCAD program, which has now shifted its attention to cloud computing and the development of products for children, students, artists, and the maker community as a whole. For example, 123D is an incredibly user-friendly program for Mac, PC, or iPad that represents a considerable decrease in the barriers of entry for the company's regular products. Agreements with 3D printer makers like MakerBot are also part of the trend.
For example, Tinker CAD was once a popular (and widely used) free tool with a large user base and growing popularity before the company abruptly announced that the app would be discontinued and disbanded its development team to create Ariston, a simulation environment targeted at professionals. Besides the already mentioned SketchUp and 123D, 3DTin, Autodesk Inventor Fusion, and two more programs available for Windows, Linux, and Mac - FreeCAD, and OpenSCAD - this Make article lists some free alternatives to Tinker CAD.
3D printing options are already available for around 500 euros, and the availability of easy and accessible 3D modeling software is one of the most important components of that ecosystem. Scanners and cloud-based technologies, as well as concepts based on existing technologies like the Kinect, are all viable alternatives to the production of 3D models for printing, which are also highly progressed.
