New tags for biology and medicine.

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Benjamin Mesing wrote:

> We had a short discussion on IRC about your proposal, and as far as we
> are concerned, Option 2. would be Ok for us (obviously Option 1. would
> also be ok, since we wouldn't have anything to do with that ;-). We
> would like to put the following tags in the main hierarchy either way:
>      * field::medicine
>      * use::comparison (though Enrico warned about the name - we would
>        imagine a diff tool from that, but I think it is just fine to
>        use it with different interpretation)
>      * use::analysis
>      * field::medicine:imaging (I wouldn't want to place that into
>        biology:: and don't see the need for a med:: facet yet)

I'm perfectly fine with this except the last item.  The currently
available packages for medical imaging do definitely not belong into
a biology section.  It is clearly about medicine and handles medical
image formats like DICOM.  Moreover we have a medical practice management
system (GNUmed) which does not really fit in any yet existing category.

> If there are no objections I will add those in roughly a week.

This would be great.

> And the following tags in the biology facet (note that I have adapted
> some of the tag names):
>      * ::bioinformatics, ::molecular-biology, ::structural-biology
>        (though those could go into field::biology if you rather see
>        that)
>      * ::format:aln, ::format:fasta, ::format:nexus (or would you
>        rather have aln-format, fasta-format,..?)
>      * ::emboss
>      * ::nucleic-acids, ::peptides
>      * ::alignment-analysis, ::phylogeny-analysis (if you really think
>        this is neccessary)
>
> Once this is agreed upon and the remaining questions are answered, I
> will add the biology facet.

I would regard this as a very reasonable compromise.

> We are not sure about the ::algorithm:* thing. They are not biology
> specific so it would be odd to put them there. Besides, Enrico pointed
> out, that nearly everything (at least the software) is made-of
> algorithms. Additionally, to me the whole made-of facet does not seem
> very concise anyways...

I trust in Enricos sane experience. ;-))

Kind regards

         Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de