Refactoring the vocabulary

Tássia Camões tassia at gmail.com
Wed Mar 24 14:28:02 UTC 2010


2010/3/24 Benjamin Mesing <bensmail at gmx.net>:
> Hi,
>
> while there is a point to the fact, that some facets could be more or less covered by
> other facets (like office, which IMO is more like a purpose classification), I think they still
> serve their purpose. I believe those facets still describe a useful concept. Besides where
> would you draw the line? E.g. not every package has a uitoolkit, is hardware related or
> has something to do with the network.

I'm not sure where to draw the line, I'm proposing that we discuss to
get somewhere together. The "draft" I've proposed is just a draft :)

The main point is not that every packet should be tagged through all
facets I've called "first level", I agree that they wouldn't. But what
I'm trying to explain is that these facets describe more general
qualities of packages while the "second level" seem to be a
categorization within one specific section/field.

> The problem with the number of facets is more a UI-issue, which can be solved (look e.g.
> at Enrico's smart search [1]). I agree, that at one point we could start grouping some
> facets, e.g. if we start having facets for every field of science, but I do not think that this
> is neccessary now.

Even though it does interfere with UI-issues, in my point of view it's
not the main question. I'm thinking of the facets semantics and how
they could be better related to help us.

I see the collection of facets/tags described in the vocabulary as a
result of years of collaborative work, with suggestions from many
contributors from different backgrounds that not always had the whole
view of it. Thus once in a while it is a good idea to think of the
whole thing again.

Thanks for your answer ;-)

[ ]'s

Tassia.



More information about the Debtags-devel mailing list