vocabulary structure

[Peter Rockai]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:50:19AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I disagree. The tagging scheme you are proposing seems to be less
> informative that the current one. You indeed loose the ability of
> distinguishing whether a given package is implemented in a given
> language or meant to be useful for a given language.
> 
> It seems like a useful distinction to me.

It seems, but until you prove otherwise, i don't think it is :). The purpose
of debtags is (IMO) to have a better way to search for packages. So the
vocabulary needs to be driven by actual real-world needs. See also my other
reply on the topic.

> The information you're trying to obtain, namely "useful for coders in a
> given language", is indeed relevant, but it seems a derived information
> to me. It seems to be derivable from the following two implication:
> 
>   IF  made-of::<language>     THEN  language::<language>
>   IF  devel::lang:<language>  THEN  language::<language>

It is derived, but i still think it is the more useful one. Right now, i would
keep the targets low and "just" make a vocabulary that gives us a search tool
that rocks.

> I really think we need support for this kind of stuff above debtags, not
> directly at the tagging level.
> 
> /me mumbling about debtags-based ontologies ...

no comment on that :-)

-- 
Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com | +421907533216 
   http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net

"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
 indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
     -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation