Questions on facets

[Enrico Zini]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 11:32:29PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> I have been trying to tag those of my installed packages which are
> either untagged or tagged incorrectly. It's been great fun. In the
> process, a number of questions arose.
> 
> The DebTagsFacets Page
> 
> Is DebTagsFacets on wiki.debian.org the right place to look for the
> meaning of each facet? I found it very helpful, but
> http://wiki.debian.org/DebTags did not provide a strong "information
> scent" for it. At first, I thought it was going to be a page on the
> concept of faceted classification and so I skipped over it completely.

I admit I had completely forgotten about that page; also thanks to
Torsten Marek, it's quite a useful resource.

I changed the description in "DebTagsFacets describes the various groups
of tags".  Of course, if you feel like editing the pages in the wiki,
you are welcome to go ahead.


> The works-with Facet
> 
> How is the works-with facet meant to be used? I understand that if a
> program groks some format as input, then a
> works-with-format::that-format tag is warranted. If a program is used
> to read image files, then we put works-with::image. But how would you
> tag a program that converts text files to image files? Would this be
> "use::converting, works-with::text", "use::converting,
> works-with::text, works-with::image, works-with-format::image:jpeg",
> or something else?

I would go for "use::converting, works-with::text, works-with::image,
works-with-format::image:jpeg": the main question to decide wether a tag
is appropriate is: "Should this program show up if I look for this tag?"

So if I'm looking for raster image things, I expect something that
generates raster images to show up.  And if I'm looking for software
that works with text, I expect a program that takes text and generates
raster images to show up.


> What about a program that does not work directly with an object but
> makes use of it indirectly by means of another program? For example,
> pristine-tar does not directly work with git repositories, but its
> very purpose involves maintaining a branch in a git repository
> containing the information needed to reconstruct published release
> tarballs. It does this by invoking git. Should pristine-tar have a
> works-with::rcs tag? (Such a works-with tag for source control does
> not currently exist, but from the presence of works-with::db I infer
> that it probably should.)

You raise a good point.  Personally, I would expect pristine-tar to show
up if I looked for works-with::vcs, so I'd add the tag.

Also, works-with::rcs makes a lot of sense, so I'm adding it.  I've
chosen to go for works-with::vcs to avoid conflict with RCS the version
control system:

  Tag: works-with::vcs
  Description: Version control system


> Documentation packages and the use facet
[...]
> To summarize: I think documentation packages should not have any tags
> in the use:: facet at all, except for use::configuring if they include
> sample configuration files, use:: tags reflecting the use of included
> example scripts, and use::learning if they are especially helpful to
> those unfamiliar with some subject (maybe). Similarly, unless included
> scripts, sample code, or pen-and-paper game instructions warrant it,
> documentation packages should not include tags under the
> accessibility, admin, devel, game, hardware, office, security, sound,
> works-with, or works-with-format facets, except for devel::doc. This
> goes against some existing practice of putting use::browsing,
> works-with-format::pdf, etc. for documentation. Documentation should
> instead have role::documentation and made-of::data:pdf, etc. Am I
> interpreting the tags correctly here?

I think what you say makes sense.  I'll go as far as saying that I think
this is the first time anyone manages to come up with a description of
the situation that makes sense: unless there are objections, I'd make
your interpretation official and add it to the help and tips pages of
the web tagger.

What happened in the past, is that basically it was all left to people's
best judgement because there were no clear ideas.  The only clear idea
was that foo-doc should not have had the same tags as foo.


> The scope facet
> 
> I was unable to figure out what tags for the scope facet, if any,
> packages should get. The DebTaggingGuidelines wiki page says in its
> description of scope::application that scope::application should be
> used for user-friendly programs and scope::utility should be used for
> programs that might be run in a pipeline. In its description of
> scope::utility, it says that scope::utility should be used for
> non-interactive programs. The current vocabulary file says that
> scope::application should be used for programs that do that 80% of the
> things you want to do 80% of the time towards a particular task (i.e.,
> programs that feel somewhat complete in themselves --- see
> <http://www.mozilla.org/unity-of-interface.html> for this idea taken
> to an extreme), while scope::utility should be used for more marginal
> programs that do more marginal things (but when you need them, you
> need them...). So here are three distinct ideas of what scope:: means,
> and all of them are vague.

Funny to read about the browser as unique global interface, after having
spent most of the day changing my password in a large amount of
different websites, each and every single time having to figure out
where they hid that cursed option :)

I think, wrt application/utility, that the description in the vocabulary
file is the most current and useful; it sort of ended I think more than
3 years of discussion in this list, so I assume people are fairly
pleased of it :)

> I don't have any real thoughts on which one is most useful, except
> that you can tell an interactive program by its interface:: tags
> already. I just mention it because it left me confused.

Yes indeed, interactive is definitely the wrong one.  Also, there are
utilities that are interactive, like xkbsel, xinput and usbview (debtags
search "interface::x11 && scope::utility" shows many more).

> Apologies for sending such a long message. I have still more
> questions, but I think these are enough for now.

By all means, bring them on.  A little at a time helps because not
everyday people have time to answer long messages, unfortunately.


On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:35:22PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> I guess I should have asked this question first: is this list the
> right place to ask what the terms listed in
> /var/lib/debtags/vocabulary mean?

Yes indeed, this is the place :)


Ciao,

Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20080424/7db22761/attachment.pgp