DAM: integrate/harmonize Collections, Keywords and IPTC location

Question

Lightroom currently presents the user with two independent methods to assign photos to a hierarchical structure: collections and keywords. Unless I missed something, keywords do everything that collections do, and more.
In addition, there is one structure that is inherently hierarchical, but is not currently implemented as such: the IPTC (metadata) location. For instance, the city of Amsterdam lies in the province of North Holland in The Netherlands, so entering Amsterdam in the 'City' field implies a province and a country.
Based on these observations, I have a couple of suggestions:
* Enhance the usability of collections with a few of the keyword features: listing all assigned collections upon selection, and dragging collections onto photos to assign.
* Allow users to convert collection trees to keyword trees, and possibly back (convenient for import/export, or changing ones mind as to what paradigm to use).
* Allow users to either export a keyword tree to the IPTC location fields, or to make a dynamic link between the two (i.e. updating the keyword would immediately affect the location data). This feature would also require an 'exclusivity swith', see below.
* Introduce an 'exclusivity switch' for keywords or collections, implying that you may only assign *one* keyword in its sub-tree to any particular image. This makes sense for location, because an image was made in a particular location, but it can also be used other contexts. For example, to indicate where the latest version of a file has been backed up to, or what the status (imported, selected, processed, finished) of a file is.
* Introduce dynamic collections *and* dynamic keywords. I have read things about query-based dynamic collections coming to Lightroom, but please also create 'dynamic keywords'. This would allow keywords to remain the catch-all organization structure, instead of dividing functionality across collections and keywords.
I think these features could make a significant contribution to Lightroom's DAM capabilities. If implemented alongside improved search capabilities, they would allow me (and possibly others) to stop using my stand-alone DAM application.
Simon

Answer 1

John, I had forgotten the fact that keywords do not have any output settings associated with them, unlike collections. I support your idea of indicating which collections have these settings attached to them.
Still, except for this point, keywords can currently be made to do the same things that collections do. You can even keep them private by choosing not to export certain keywords. Note that even though this is the case, I do not ask for the abolishment of collections per se, because it is convenient to maintain the *conceptual* difference (in addition to the output metadata in collections).
On the locations, I don't think the 'problem' is solved simply by exporting the location data to a keyword tree. It's the other direction that would greatly speed up the workflow. For example, dragging Amsterdam (potentially one of many Amsterdams) onto an image, would automatically assign the higher level fields as well. A metadata preset would indeed do the same, but only after one has created such a preset for every location, which can quickly add up.
Also, I did not mean to imply that dynamic keywords would be beneficial for keeping track of the location metadata. In general, dynamic categories (collections or keywords) are very useful for saving searches or keeping track of an internal workflow (like: if an image is not in a backup collection, it is not backed up). Specifically, I can imagine someone wanting to couple a search result to an exported keyword. For example, for a personal website or a Flickr account, you may want to tag images with the keyword '5stars' that is automatically generated.
The way I see it, there is currently no real difference in the logical structures that can be constructed using collections and keywords. The distinctions between the two are in the input or output phase. It would be a shame to see the logical capabilities of collections enhanced with 'smart' collections, whilst leaving keywords behind.
By the way, I'm all for a scripting interface, but I think that it's best to get the basics implemented in the right way first.
Simon
PS - You pointed out the existence of custom fields as a workflow solution. I have no experience with them, and don't have access to Lightroom on this machine, so I'll get back on that later.