> The underlying implementation does not matter, we can always add a layer on top of the hierarchical file system.
I don't think so. hierarchical (trees) are too limited, and my intuition tell me that this lead to a impedance mismatch.
This is the reason the relational model take over, is far more powerfull.
To have something comparable, you need full graphs.
I think is not coincidence that tag-based filesystem have never take off, the tree-based file system can never be good for it, you need or a graph database or a relational database (or both?). And this probably is only viable on SSD/RAM-alike disks.
Finally tags are not enough. You need a way to do groups and alias and groups of groups, plus a way to full-text-search and seriously good metadata alongside the file...
I don't think so. hierarchical (trees) are too limited, and my intuition tell me that this lead to a impedance mismatch.
This is the reason the relational model take over, is far more powerfull.
To have something comparable, you need full graphs.
I think is not coincidence that tag-based filesystem have never take off, the tree-based file system can never be good for it, you need or a graph database or a relational database (or both?). And this probably is only viable on SSD/RAM-alike disks.
Finally tags are not enough. You need a way to do groups and alias and groups of groups, plus a way to full-text-search and seriously good metadata alongside the file...