KLink::Group

[Scott Wheeler]

Responding to myself here --

Aaron and I talked about this some last week and it was agreed that Node 
groups don't make sense and such and that it's easy enough to represent them 
just as an additional node plus a set of links from that node.

All of that is of course true.  However it didn't dawn on me until I was just 
checking in some new API documentation that we both kind of missed the point 
there:

Node groups aren't interesting.  Link groups are.  Unless we want to have 
links to links (which I think is kind of nasty) we're back to the idea of 
link groups.

Most of the things in my last mail weren't nodes -- really they're links.

"Bob Dylan" isn't an artist in our scheme, fundamentally.  It's just a phrase.  
It's only when it's in relation to a music file that it becomes an artist.  
Specifically it'll probably be both the ID3v2 and the ID3v1 artist name for a 
given mp3.

id3v1 is a group of links, not a group of nodes.  Mimetype I think would 
probably actually be a node group.  But something like the textual 
description of a mimetype would be a link group (word to file mapping).

So, we're back to "What do we do about link groups?"  I think they probably 
still need to be there, but I may have changed my mind by tomorrow.  Aaron?

-Scott

-- 
We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: 
premature optimization is the root of all evil.
-Donald Knuth