Skip to Content

Tags or Topic tree?

Is the new SCN about tags or like the old SCN about topics with dedicated sub topics (i.e. the Places system)?

The screenshot above as an example, the product SAP Business One (main tag) runs on MS SQL Server (was a secondary tag), and in small part on HANA (probably also its own tag?). In this case the question is about a query for B1 on an MS SQL system. Adding the MS SQL tag is no more than logical.

Earlier on I have seen experts on MS SQL (who never even heard of SAP Business One) help people with questions about SAP Business One on MS SQL This was a big positive to me about the new tag system. People are no longer holding on to their own little corner of SAP's intellectual real estate.

However, the moderator in this example is of the opinion that MS SQL only belongs to his product Netweaver, and that people should know that and not bother the Netweaver community. In effect he enforces the topic tree system of the old SCN.

So the question is, is SAP reversing the design logic, or are not all moderators on board with the new system yet?

tagremoved.jpg (82.0 kB)
Add comment
10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Get RSS Feed

3 Answers

  • Best Answer
    Dec 01, 2016 at 12:57 PM

    Hi Johan,

    I think having tags specific related to products and their databases avoid questions being posted for non-SAP products. It happened a lot of times in the old SCN structure and it might happen in the future again, as there is no registry necessary for a S-User to use the Q&A.

    It is very likely that some questions related to SQL Server can be answered by both areas, but most of those questions are very specific to their own products. We have a list of recommendations and configurations from NetWeaver that are not applicable to any other software running on SQL Server. For example, Microsoft recommends all customers to de-fragment indexes on regular basis, rebuilding indexes, schedule jobs to update statistics, we advise against it.

    SQL Server DBAs known Microsoft recommendations, those who are very familiar with SAP NetWeaver (and based products) are already familiar with those recommendations.

    We are working towards to add "NetWeaver-based products" in the existing tag, as well I would encourage to have a other tags added.

    For now, until we have these new taggs adjusted, I will publish all questions with SQL Server tag, regardless of the product, to ensure this will reach out to most experts.

    Thanks for your feedback on this!

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Nov 28, 2016 at 07:46 AM

    Hi Luis,

    I understand your point.

    An own tag might be an idea, but considering that anything (question, knowledge, opinion) related to MS SQL Server, relates to MS SQL Server, whether it is used with Netweaver or SAP Business One. Experts on MS SQL Server who happen to have come to SCN through either Netweaver or SAP Business One, can easily help each other, independent of related SAP product.

    It seems to me that SAP chose the new tag system because of its advantages, and then shot down these advantages, by tying it to the old topic hierarchy concept.

    Anyway, an own tag is indeed the next best solution.



    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded

  • Nov 25, 2016 at 04:49 PM

    Thank you for your feedback.

    It is not an opinion about what belongs to the tag, but what exactly it is. This tag is under the topic "SAP on SQL Server" and all our content belongs to SAP systems based on SAP NetWeaver. In the past we had many topics from users that weren't even about SAP products, and in the old space design, we used to move a lot of BusinessOne and other products topic questions to their own space.

    I think it should encourage the Business One community to build and share SQL Server knowledge dedicated to SAP Business One. The same applies for BusinessObjects etc. Maybe, a new tag "SAP BusinessOne on SQL Server", under SAP Business One.

    Add comment
    10|10000 characters needed characters exceeded