vocabulary structure

[Peter Rockai]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:10:34AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Peter Rockai wrote:
> > There are some things bothering me about current vocabulary. One
> > of them is the devel::lang: and made-of:: stuff. The
> > made-of::<language> should probably go away for all
> > turing-complete programming languages and be replaced with
> > made-of::source-code.  devel::lang: should be just ripped out.
> 
> At present, the made-of::lang and devel::lang facets give two
> different kinds of information.  It's possible (and informative) for
> a package to be tagged "made-of::lang:c, devel::lang:python" or
> vice-versa.

Yes, an information hardly worth 20+ extra tags.

> > To specify language, a new facet could be created, like language::
> > (description Programming Language?).
> 
> Or you could call the facet "implemented-in::", which is what it was
> called this time last year.  The facet name "language::" would just
> make it even harder to find the locale facet (IMHO mis-)labelled
> "culture::".

The user interface is not supposed to show tag names. Those are internal. The
short descriptions are what is relevant for the user. And that says
Programming Language, as i say above. No way to confuse that with culture.

> > The cases where a package contains source code in language A but
> > is primarily useful with language B can be handled by tagging with
> > both language::A and language::B. The idea is that if it's written
> > in A, it can be useful for A coders anyway -- studying code,
> > reusing, etc... 
> 
> As an administrator, I would prefer to apt-get a bandwidth-monitor
> made-of: C to one made-of: PHP.  But meanwhile I avoid everything
> under devel: because I'm not a programmer.  To me, this looks like a
> very bad idea.

Apart from the slight problem that C-implemented packages are not made-of C.
If they are, the facet is completely nonsensical (there is no C code in the
package).

> 
> Besides, if I install a utility under the impression that it's going
> to be useful for C coding and then discover that no, it's only
> *implemented* in C, how am I meant to "reuse" the compiled binary?

> > So the language:: facet would go like "useful for coders in a
> > given language". 
> 
> A special-interest facet which belongs under "devel::".

No. There is no "facet hierarchy". For goodness sake. How long it takes till
people grasp the concept?

> > As for rest of made-of, there's only data:*, so made-of::data and
> > format:: (File Format) facet would be probably a good idea again.
> 
> Why exactly is it better to have a cluttered top level?

Why exactly do you need to show all of the top level all the time? Besides.
There is no hierarchy. So there are no levels other than "facet" and "tag".

As for the "special-interest facet". The fact it's special-interest is not
special in any way. Many facets are, and that's the way it's supposed to be.
The special interest facets are only present on relatively few packages. So
they don't show up in the tag list until they become relevant for searching in
that package set. If you have package set that is mostly development-related
stuff, you probably want to see development-related tags.

The current vocabulary has the problem of mixing orthogonal things in one
facet. And the exact thing faceted categorisation is trying to achieve is to
avoid this problem.

> > The other option is to double the format facet, but it doesn't
> > make too much sense IMO. We can always fix it if it turns out to
> > be a problem, so i vote on keeping it simple. 
> 
> "Double" in what sense?

understands-format:: and contains-format:: (absence of better names, that'd
have to be thought of in more detail)

> Please don't throw out the made-of::lang/devel::lang distinction.

I won't if someone comes up with a plausible use case. On current archive.
Let's note that made-of::lang: has different semantics that implemented-in::
which is again slightly orthogonal. However, if something is
made-of::lang:<scirpting language> it is usually also
implemented-in::<scripting language>. However for compiled languages that is
not true.

Yours, Peter.

-- 
Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com | +421907533216 
   http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net

"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
 indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
     -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation