Refactoring the vocabulary

[Tássia Camões]

Hello team,

I've been thinking about the group of facets and tags defined in the
vocabulary and I would like to open a discussion on this topic.

It doesn't seem reasonable to me that, for example, facets like
"implemented-in" and "biology" are at the same level of hierarchy in
the categorization. While some facets can really be defined as
"different points of view from which to look at the package archive",
some other seem only to be the relation with a specific field (as it
happens with "biology", that most of the packages will never be
categorized under this facet).

Using this aproach we would be much closer to the magic number 7 plus
or minus 2 mentioned by [1].

As a first draft, the ones I would consider as "first level" facets are:

culture, field, implemented-in, hardware, interface, made-of, role,
scope, network, suite, uitoolkit, use, works-with, works-with-format

The others seem to be "second level" ones ( they could be nested,
maybe under a "section" facet):

accessibility, admin, biology, devel, filetransfer, game, junior,
mail, office, protocol, security, sound, web, x11


I don't know all the implications of doing such a change, but I'd be
happy to make you think about this.

[ ]'s

Tassia.

[1] http://debtags.alioth.debian.org/paper-debtags.html