New tag proposals from iterating.org (2/2)
Justin B Rye
jbr at edlug.org.uk
Wed Nov 8 22:06:04 CET 2006
Enrico Zini wrote:
> "Web Site Design/Development Tools"
> It suggests me the need for a tag for mp4h, wml, and maybe bigger
> framework like Ruby on Rails. Ideas for a name?
Is this devel::web, as opposed to web::devel?
> * "Website Design & Tools"
> PROPOSAL: iterating.org proposes a new facet "web-design" with the
> following tags:
> "Website design" -> website ::editors
> "HTML Editors" -> website ::editors::HTML
The only dedicated webby editing app I've seen in Debian is nvu,
which seems to have vanished again, but would have been tagged
adequately by devel::web + use::editing.
> "Audio Effects" -> website ::editors::audio
> "Visual Effects" -> website ::editors::visual
> "Flash Development" -> website::editors ::flash
> "Text Effects" -> website ::editors::text
> "Style Sheet Editors" -> website::editors::css
Even if we want specific tags for ::editing::text etc (and IMHO we
don't), let's not put them under web::.
> "Games" -> website::games
> "Log Analyzers" -> website ::loggers
It seems to me there are already plenty of tags about logfiles.
> "Promotion Software" -> website ::promotions
> My vision starts to blur after all these tags, so I welcome help in
> judging if we should put them in a new facet or if we have better
> places to fit them.
Well, we have web::, and the only thing I was aware of that was
stopping us adding more site-design stuff in there was uncertainty
about how to organise it. There were some good ideas in part 1 of
this list... but let's not end up duplicating every possible
tag-combo that represents a thing web-designers do as a dedicated
multi-colonated tag under web::, every thing software developers do
> "Application Servers & Other Middleware" -> [NEW] web:: appserver
> "Application Server Platforms" -> [NEW] web::appserver::platforms
> "Application Server","web::appserver",,,
Wait a minute, we've got web::appserver - though I've never been
sure I was tagging the right packages.
> "Service Oriented Architecture and Web Services",,,,
> "Service Oriented Architecture" -> [NEW] web::service-oriented-arhitecture
> "Web Services Architecture" -> [NEW] web::service-arhitecture
> "Services-Oriented Management" -> [NEW] web::service-oriented-management
> "Integration Software" -> [NEW] web::integration
> "Data Integration Software" -> [NEW] web::integration::data
> "Business Process Automation Deployment Software" -> [NEW] web::integration::business-autom
> "Access, Platform, and Other Integration Software" -> [NEW] web::integration::platform
> "Integration Server Software Platforms",,,,
> "Message-Oriented Middleware" -> [NEW] web::message-oriented
> "Transaction Server Middleware" -> [NEW] web::transaction-server
> "Application Deployment Adapters/Connectors" -> [NEW] web::app-deployment
> "Database & Related Tools" -> [NEW] Facet:database
> "Relational Database Management Systems" -> [NEW] database::DBMS::relational
> "Pre- and Postrelational DBMS" -> [NEW] database::DBMS::pre/post relational
> "Object-Oriented DBMS" -> [NEW] databse::DBMS::object oriented
> "XML Database Management Systems" -> [NEW] database::DBMS::XML
> "End-User DBMSs" -> [NEW] database::DBMS::end-user
> "Embedded Database Management Systems" -> [NEW] database::DBMS::embedded
> "Data Management Facilities" -> [NEW] database::DBMS::facilities
> "Data Movement and Replication Software" -> [NEW] database::data-movement
> "Data Connectivity Software" -> [NEW] database::data-conectivity
> "Metadata Definition and Management Software" -> [NEW] database::DBMS::metadata-definition
(My head is spinning. I am beginning to think that maybe we should
just create tags for every combination of two or three dictionary
words, and see whether tags appear on the packages for the ones that
make sense. That way we wouldn't be imposing on our users our
preconceptions about use::moleskin-disoriented and devel::spanking
> "Business Intelligence" -> [NEW] Facet:BI
If we have Business Intelligence, don't we also need Business
Counterintelligence? These hardly sound like real distinguishing
features of Debian software packages that people need help searching
for. And bi:: would be a particularly baffling thing to call it -
> * "Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)" -> [NEW] Facet::ERP
We've got "facturalux - ERP/CRM software for GNU/Linux", with two
maintainers and two popcon votes... but let's not give it a
top-level facet of its own just yet.
> * "Customer Relationship Management (CRM)" -> [NEW] Facet: CRM
> "Sales" -> [NEW] CRM:: sales
> "Marketing" -> [NEW] CRM::marketing
CRM is ambiguous even within the world of S&M, where it stands for
Cause-Related Marketing too. Besides, I'd imagine anybody looking
for Customer Relationship Management software is going to get a
single company-wide integrated CRM system (or service), not go
hunting through aptitude for a good crm::sales package, then a good
crm::marketing package, and so on!
So field::sales-marketing, yes, if there are packages to tag; maybe
even buzzword::crm; but crm::customer-service, no.
> * "Industry Specific" -> [NEW] Facet: industry
These are fields, and they're all fields we don't need tags for.
Meanwhile all the packages that could be in field::linguistics are
still patiently waiting in field::TODO. Frankly I think if there's
no evidence of people trying to apply appropriate tags and
discovering they're absent there's no point drowning ourselves in a
sea of unpopulated jargon-facets that we ourselves don't really
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)
More information about the Debtags-devel