I doubt that yours and my definition of “advanced DAM” will be the same. Sorry for being unspecific, a lot of products call themselves DAM these days and I also do not agree with their definitions. For me, defining and applying keywords is the most unpleasant job to do and a simple file structure has tons of limits, which I have no need for - the limits, not the structure. Let’s keep it that way.
I agree, we are all different and have different needs, so what’s an advance DAM to me, may be simple and plain to you.
Regarding applying Keywords, to me it’s only the next to the most unpleasant task. The most unpleasant one ist the rearrange them in PL! 
1 Like
Well, I don’t know many DAMs (if any at all…) where rearranging keywords amongst other metadata edits (like time corrections, some IPTC entries) is a real pleasure to do, I agree. A well made database, although a good solution for things like that, has also it’s downsides when it comes to accessing it from different PCs on different platforms.
In Aperture i.e. the metadata were only administered in the database and attached to the exported files at the moment of export. This way typos or misinterpretations of parent and child keywords for one database could be corrected and even (I think) transferred to other databases. But once the database was corrupted, troubles began to dance on the screen.