[Debtags-devel] Data and Role restructuring proposal

Enrico Zini enrico@enricozini.org
Tue, 14 Jun 2005 23:27:19 +0200

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'

 - - -

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!


> >    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.


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.



GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)