[Debtags-devel] Data and Role restructuring proposal
Enrico Zini
enrico@enricozini.org
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:27:19 +0200
--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:54:33PM -0700, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > Let's see what the resulting set will be:
> > role::applet - Applets and Dockapps
[...]
> > role::utility - Utilities
> What is the role of openoffice? I wouldn't call it a utility. And it's
> not a client either.
> Similar for many games etc. - so we are still missing something here.
> Basically, each package should have a role.
You're right. That calls for something like "application" and "game".
There might be others, although I hope there won't be too many. I could
think of "window managers" and "input methods" as software with yet
another different role, and I get worried about how many can still show
up :(
But I do agree: each package should have a role. The debtags-edit in
experimental has even a features to filter for packages without 'role'
tags.
- - -
While I was at it, I've been looking into dict for definitions of
'application' and 'utility':
Tag: role::sw-application
Description: (Software) Applications
A program that provides the user with tools to accomplish a task.
Tag: role::sw-utility
Description: (Software) Utilities
A program designed for general support of the processes of a computer.
An improvement maybe, but I think we could do better. At least, I
instinctively feel that a better distinctive line can exist.
> > It might even make sense to do a bit of grouping here for clarity:
> Oh, grouping. Hierarchies! Jehova! Jehova!
8-D
> > role::sw-applet - (Software) Applets and Dockapps
> > role::content-dictionary - (Content) Dictionary
> > role::aux-data - (Auxiliary) Application-specific data
> Why not use role::sw::applet, role::content::dictionary etc. and add
> the option to select a whole "group"? Sometimes you don't really care
> which kind of software it is, which kind of content...
I'm still wary of using a double "::": I'm happy to try grouping to
organise tags inside a facet, but I still feel strongly about not mixing
the concepts of facets and tags.
> > and documentation is not necessarily content only (think of interactive
> > documentation such as an expert system).
> You could give both tags, if that would be allowed by the facet rules.
Sure it is possible to give both tags. Looks like I asked a silly
question after all :)
> > If everyone is happy I could try making this change and then we can all
> > see what comes out. In the worst case, I roll it back.
> Just go ahead, I don't see any downsides.
Great!
I've been doing the first part of adding the new tags to the vocabulary
and renaming the existing tags; in the next days I'll remove the legacy
tags from the vocabulary.
Ciao,
Enrico
--
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCr0u39LSwzHl+v6sRArl6AJ96R0aq0jN7hDKAD6QayR0ZBXkfkgCZAaSS
eX4Ux+47SoOgSv5PsahgcIQ=
=dCLR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--