Faceted tags

[Erich Schubert]

Hi,

>   devel:: (supports the goal of development)
>   langdevel:: (supports looking for tools specific to a given language)

I don't understand this distinction.

>   implemented-in:: (supports looking for existing code to reuse)

>   media:: (supports looking for software working with a media of intere=
st)=20
>   tech:: (supports looking for specific technology)

Isn't media some kind of tech itself?
i'd suggest using tech::media:: then.

>   suite:: (allows to differentiate among all the element that compose
>           big pieces of software)

Not having looked at your data i find this hard to understand.
suite::wordprocessor ? What is this good for?

>   interface:: (allows to choose the interaction method)
>     (actually, I don't think interface::3d belongs there, and I think
>     that that "3d" should be defined better.  Maybe by creating specifi=
c
>     tags under "tech::", like "tech::vrml", "tech::opengl"...)

Well, you can think of it like the following:
daemons  (logrotate etc.) don't have a real interface
cli apps have a kind of "linear" interface (a string.)
x11 apps usually have 2d interface
there a couple of apps coming which have a spatial interface.
This can be things like a 3d window manager; or an opengl pool game.
Such an application can be unuseable for some people, which might prefer
apps with a "voice" interface.
Servers are hard to place here; usually they are daemons (for the
administrator) and the clients are x11 etc.

>   uitoolkit:: (allows to look for similarly-looking applications and
>                code to reuse)
>   culture:: (it gives you things specific to your identity)
>   x11:: (nice, clean distinction from the x11 point of view)

which would be? technical aspects of x11 like window managers?
that should go into tech::x11:: IMHO.

>   use:: (supports goal-oriented searches, and see also
>          http://segusoland.sourceforge.net/ for possible further uses)
>   web:: (web is a world by itself, and here's its point of view)

I agree here

>   admin:: (system administration is another world by itself)
>   field:: (here we go into Library Science, and we could borrow some ta=
g
>            set from there.  It's very cool to cathecorize also the
> 	   various books and other free data we started packaging:
> 	   "anarchism" could go in field::politics, for example)
>   game:: (gaming is indeed another world by itself)
>   hardware:: (it's great to be able to see things for the point of view
>               of something you can really touch!)

> I don't like so far:
>   role: I lack the cognitive structure to find out the name for
> 	the point of view under which an application is a client or a
> 	server.  "daemon" is another thing so far I can't assign a point
> 	of view (maybe "interface", as a daemon is something that has no
> 	interface?  Uhm...  it could be)

The reason i added both "daemon" and "server" is that for example the
gnocatan server has a GTK UI; whereas my cpufreq daemon has no interface
but certainly isn't a server.

client, server, proxy, browser, viewer - these roles are similar to the
use item. We need to sort that out.

>   data: the intent was to categorize non-software content, as Debian no=
w
>         contains manuals, books, artwork, and this part could be
> 	expanded (I plan to package a kitchen recipe collection, for
> 	example).  However, the effort so far didn't go very far and
> 	needs more thinking, de-constructing and clarification of ideas
> 	:)

well, we should tag these anyway. This is also to mark packages which
don't contain applications but their (arch-independant) support data
files.

>   platform: just "laptop" and "embedded"?  Uhm... it's a point of view
>         from which I can't see very much, but a point of view I see
> 	a reason for

well, there's OPIE, which IMHO is different from regular embedded linux
and laptop use. You could also add "server-machine" and "desktop" here.

> This is a problem I recognize, too.  I see it only arising inside facet=
s
> with more than 10/15 tags, and more like a problem of how to organize
> tags inside a facet.

Facets like the tech:: or use:: facet will grow quite big i fear.
And actually that is okay for me, if we force the tags to keep that
structure. (which we did previously with implications)

> Is there the University of Urbino involved in that?  I know they are
> planning to start an Information Architecture course there, which is
> exactly the topic we're moving in here.

I havn't seen them on the list, but maybe they'll join. Also the web
pages are in the process of being built.
http://www.pms.ifi.lmu.de/rewerse/participants/

Greetings,
Erich Schubert
--=20
    erich@(vitavonni.de|debian.org)    --    GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C    (o_
   To understand recursion you first need to understand recursion.   //\
    Das gr=C3=B6=C3=9Fte Hindernis beim Erkennen der Wahrheit ist nicht d=
ie    V_/_
       Falschheit, sondern die Halbwahrheit. --- L. N. Tolstoi