New tagcolledit

[Enrico Zini]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 06:45:41PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:

> I'm quite new to this list, so please forgive me if I state something
> allready discussed or if I ask some stupid questions.

Hello Benjamin!  Welcome to the list, and please don't worry about the
questions you make.


> Here are some things I've noticed:
> There are very few tags (I actually found x11 and system on a quick
> look), which where not qualified by a namespace. As I understood it,
> This seems to break the default structure to me. Is there any reason for
> doing this?

There is some old tag which I still haven't converted, and is probably
going to disappear soon.  Some tag without namespace may remain, to
represent entire namespaces: for example, "use::chatting" may imply the
tag "use".

I think it could create confusion, but Erich probably needs this in his
package browser and we still haven't discussed much about it.


> One question about the tag "devel::environment": Wouldn't the tag
> "devel::ide" be a better selection as it is commonly known by
> developers? Tools like kdevelop, lyx, ?emacs?.. could be added there -
> but I guess this a task tagcolledit should be used for :-) 

Good point.  I'm going to rename the tag.


> I also have a technical question:
> 
> When the new tags come into effect, will there be a new version of
> /var/lib/debtags/vocabulary
> And if so, will it follow the same syntax as the old one? I think as the
> implies section should be obsolete I will have to rewrite my code to
> organize the tags in a hierarchy - what should not be too difficult.
> @Enrico I use your debtags class Vocabulary there but it seems it will
> need some (small?) modifications. Do you plan to do this?

Yes: I plan to make a new debtags package with the updated vocabulary
quite soon.  The syntax will be the same, except maybe some new record
for grouping tags in facets/namespaces which contain too many things.

I was thinking of something like this (and I take advantage of the
opportunity to propose it to the list):  **PROPOSAL** **PROPOSAL**

Tag: tech::http
Groups: proto, net, web

Tag: tech::ftp
Groups: proto, net

Tag: tech::vorbis
Groups: format

Tag: tech::ogg
Groups: format, net

Then the "Groups" values could be used as hints to further organize tags
inside namespaces.

Maybe the current "Implies:" could eventually be replaced by "Facet:",
leaving "Implies:" supported in case we need it to auto-generate some
tagging (for example, we could decide that "interface::web" could imply
"web::application" and vice-versa, and use implications as a way to
enforce it).


Ciao,

Enrico