[Debtags-devel] New version of Debtags stuff uploaded to experimental
Erich Schubert
Erich Schubert <erich.schubert@gmail.com>
Sun, 29 May 2005 23:56:23 -0700
Hi,
> Now, the point of facets is not to hierarchise, but to give a specific
> and well-defined domain to categories. There is no hierarchy here. I
> don't want hierarchies.
There is nothing wrong with "subdomains" per se. (think of a facet
vehicles and a subfacet wheeled-vehicles, which then has the tags car,
chariot, bicycle), and still this enforces probably too much onto the
user to artificially *separate* things. Top-level facets should be a
lot easier cut IMHO. A good set of top-level facets would probably be
"use-for, technology, looks, language, maturity".
And since these get just way to big to handle, we need additional
strcuture in there - like hwtech, swtech, implemented-in.
I mean, it was I who introduced "namespaces" into debtags, by just
naming lots of tages something::foo when I thought they kind of belong
together.
I definitely agree with the goal of having them with a clearly defined
scope, and I really want to have the entries inside as "mutually
exclusive" (in meaning, not in application) as possible.
I just don't think that limiting yourself to a one-level hierarchy
(even when you can't tag package just with a facet) will do you any
good, because you lose the clean separation at the top level then.
And for the cd-sculpture example - well, I don't use facets for the
user interface right now (which you consider to be a bug, not a
feature, and I partially agree).
best regards,
Erich Schubert
--
erich@(mucl.de|debian.org) -- GPG Key ID: 4B3A135C (o_
To understand recursion you first need to understand recursion. //\
Wo befreundete Wege zusammenlaufen, da sieht die ganze Welt f=FCr V_/_
eine Stunde wie eine Heimat aus. --- Herrmann Hesse