kwinkunks
commented
9 years ago Tags are the most flexible way to handle this I think. More flexible than folder-like things, which require unique membership. With tags you don't have to guess how people will categorize (lithology, basin, age, source, whatever).
Would be good for fluids and scenarios too... everything in fact (see #61).
Related to what we put in the Rock Property Catalog, e.g. http://www.subsurfwiki.org/wiki/Mesaverde_immature_sandstone_3_(Kelly_1983). The metadata fields might come in as tags.
Wondering about a way to get the rock dashboard under control, and thinking about this idea of having families of rocks, or folders of rocks.
For instance, if I'm building a model for the oil sands, I don't want to have to scroll through a list of gas sands from the Gulf of Mexico. However, if for some odd reason I want to insert a rock that doesn't belong, I should be able to do so if I want to. Maybe each rock can have "tags", but tags that are specific for working within and across hierarchies.
I feel like the only reasonable grouping is based on geographic area / project area.
I mean, maybe people want to take a Gulf of Mexico gas sand and insert it into a North Sea model, but maybe we need allow for rocks to have a scope, and limit their radius of influence.
This is potentially related to issue #117. People should be able to manage their rocks and rock names, and also manage their rocks families from one project to another.
It also seems like a good thing to package for sharing; "Let me give you the rock set I used in my model", seems better than "let me give you these 6 rocks, with 6 parameters each"
My initial suggestion it to add another field in the rock database called "project", or "region". Then that's an optional filter. User can upload an image. User can upload "project rocks", if they've taken the time to get organized.
Thoughts welcome, I'll add more to this thread as it occurs to me.