Which DebTag for Debian-Med ?

[Charles Plessy]

Le Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 02:25:59PM +0100, Steffen Moeller a écrit :
> On Monday 08 January 2007 10:41, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> 
> > I do not think that "suite" is the right choice, tagging with "field" is
> > much more useful; as you can see, under "field" are such fields as
> > astronomy, biology and chemistry already available. Adding
> > "field::medicine" would be useful to me, and to put subclasses of
> > medicine below it:

Hi all,

Thijs has a point: with the suite:: tags I just would like to transfer
existing information in the debtags system. In the future, the
information could flow in the opposite direction, but this is up to the
people developing the CDD framework. (the metapackages of debian-med are
Custom Debian Distribution metapackages).


> fields::biology::sequence
> fields::biology::sequence::dna
> fields::biology::sequence::rna
> fields::biology::sequence::protein
> fields::biology::structure
> fields::biology::interaction
> fields::biology::genomics
> fields::biology::proteomics
> fields::biology::metabolomics

If we are affraid of not having enough packages to populate all the
subfields, we could group all the omics with interaction, and call this
systems-biology, or biology::systems. If necessary, we could revive the
distinction in another facet, such as use for instance, like:

field::biology::systems
use::experimental::genomics::microarrays
works-with-format::xml::miame

or, in an example similar to Steffen's:

field::biology::sequence
use::analysis::comparison
works-with-format::plaintext::aln

If the debtags list agrees on the main lines, we could finalise the
discussion on the debian-med list.

By the way, does anybody knows an ontology of the scientific fields?
This could save some time...

Have a nice day,


-- 
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wako, Saitama, Japan