> Then, I go back to the implementers and tell them to design in a tagging system, which is a DIY taxonomy, and except in ridiculous use cases, I can make indexes make it fast enough to let everyone overlay their own classification system.

This 100x! I wish this were more common.

The key property of a tree is that there a unique path (address) for each element, which is a useful property in the implementation layer. But forcing that on users is a horribly leaky abstraction.

Ideally separate the low-level implementation from the interface, and allow users their own way to address content. I imagine object storage (with UUIDs or whatever) is often good enough for the lower layer. For the interface layer, tags are an improvement on categories (tree structure), but I think there's also room for more innovation (fuzzy matching, AI-driven interfaces, etc) that start by allowing trading-off precision for recall but then allow regaining precision by adding more approximate qualifiers to the filtering.

----

PS: Pushing this approach to 11/10...

An intriguing (crazy?) application of this idea would be: what if we did this to the concept of a codebase? Make it a database (with all the corresponding improvements over a filesystem) -- it's no longer a tree of files, and allow users to query code like "that foo which accepts a bar, frobnicates its internal state, and emits a mutated baz". Note that this might also solve the "naming things" problem.

This setup seems like a powerful abstraction for AI coding agents. All that back-end power (database >> filesystem) is something they can easily leverage, and they can also be built to robustly resolve your fuzzy queries into precise addresses, and then update the code based on your desired outcome.