[Debtags-devel] Vocabulary updates, part 2

Enrico Zini enrico@enricozini.org
Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:58:57 +0200


--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:19:51AM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:

> Ranganathan suggests that there are 5 fundamental facets, the PMEST:
>  * Personality=E2=80=94what the object is primarily =E2=80=9Cabout.=E2=80=
=9D This is
>    considered the =E2=80=9Cmain facet.=E2=80=9D
>  * Matter=E2=80=94the material of the object
>  * Energy=E2=80=94the processes or activities that take place in
>    relation to the object
>  * Space=E2=80=94where the object happens or exists
>  * Time=E2=80=94when the object occurs
[..]
> It'd be interesting to see our list of facets on this light:
>=20
>  * Personality=E2=80=94what the object is primarily =E2=80=9Cabout.=E2=80=
=9D
>    accessibility, admin, dbtech, devel, field, filetransfer, format,
>    game, hardware, hwtech, junior, langdevel, mail, media, network,
>    protocol, security, sound, web
>  * Matter=E2=80=94the material of the object
>    data, implemented-in, interface, role, suite, uitoolkit
>  * Energy=E2=80=94the processes or activities that take place in
>    relation to the object
>    use
>  * Space=E2=80=94where the object happens or exists
>    culture
>  * Time=E2=80=94when the object occurs
>    (nothing that we have comes to my mind, although some auto-generated
>    tag like:
>      last-release::last-week
>      last-release::last-month
>      last-release::last-year
>      last-release::before-last-year
>    can be an idea of something to put here.
>=20
>  * Without an obvious placing:
>    special

I've been thinking more about this.  And I realised I misplaced most of
the facets; the major one is that I messed up 'personality' with
'energy'.  I try to fix this later in this message.

This question is tricky:
 "Are the technology-related facets (dbtech, format, hwtech, protocol)
 belonging to "personality" ("energy" would be even better) or to
 "matter"?"

That is: do they describe what do I do with the program, or a way the
program is made?

In some cases, it would be both: if we take an IMAP client, then "IMAP"
belongs both to its 'energy' and to its material.  However, if we think
HTTP, that's something that is hardly related to the personality of a
software, but it's mostly pertaining to its material.

Messy?  Looks like.  What we're having is two different meanings of the
technology: one is the technology itself (think the RFC), and the other
is the meaning that that technology has started to have in society
(think "HTML editor": that really means "Website editor").

I think that this kind of ambiguities have been making our tagging job
harder than it should: sometimes we think one meaning, sometimes we
think another, and we have a hard time in making decisions; for example,
we have a hard time knowing where to stop adding tags to facets. =20
"Should I add '<Obscure protocol>' to 'protocols'?" has to answers:
"Users would not care" and "But that is what that application is made
of".  It has two answers because we're looking at two different meanings
that can be assigned to that protocol.

By distinguishing "matter" and "energy", we can actually distinguish
"what the software is made of" and "what do I do with it": that's
exactly the en-passe outlined above.

This tempts me to have two facets containing something related to
'html': 'technology(or format)::html' and 'media::webpage'.

This is a jump in our (well, at least in mine I think, and I hope I'm
not alone) understanding of categorization of software.

I'll try to recategorize the facets along the PMEST:


 * Personality=E2=80=94what the object is primarily =E2=80=9Cabout.=E2=80=9D
    -> Answers to the question "what is it?"

   Facets: interface, junior, mail, network, role, suite, web


 * Matter=E2=80=94the material of the object
    -> Answers to the question "what is it made of?"

   Facets: data, dbtech, filetransfer, format, hwtech, implemented-in,
           protocol, uitoolkit


 * Energy=E2=80=94the processes or activities that take place in
   relation to the object
    -> Answers to the question "what do I do with it?"

   Facets: accessibility, admin, devel, game, hardware,
           langdevel, media, security, sound, use


 * Space=E2=80=94where the object happens or exists
    -> Answers to the question "where do I use this?"

   Facets: culture, field


 * Time=E2=80=94when the object occurs
   (still to figure out a mapping of this for software)


 * Without an obvious placing:
    -> Just one to be hidden and used for bookkeeping and other
       user-unrelated things

   Facet: special


More outcomes that come to my mind:
 - Debian Developers can be safely delegated with everything related to
   "material", as they are probably the best to know how the package is
   made, and they're in direct contact with upstream for learning more.
 - Users (or at least some restricted part) can be delegated with what
   is related to "energy", as they are the ones that do something with
   the software.

An interface can group facets by PMEST:

    What is the program?    [Select]
    What is it made of?     [Select]
    What do I do with it?   [Select]
    Where do I use it?      [Select]

And then clicking on "Select" allows selection along that restricted set
of facets.

Lots of nice games to play with this.  Together with filtering facets by
maturity, I can see some really useful interfaces coming out!


Ciao,

Enrico

--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@debian.org>

--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCcOwh9LSwzHl+v6sRAoIyAJ0aQildQRRjbvkqTaI/mxtlUz2Q0wCcD4U0
kkPHfUdYKsdIftL2TYJJApU=
=ehko
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--