On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 09:11 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > 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.
I think you have misunderstood me. It's the same that I thought. Therefore I left it in the field:: facet as field::medicine:imaging. Regards Ben _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list Debtags-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel