Hello > > Thus we need to decide, if those details should become > > part of the main vocabulary database. > > Well, I don't think that we should make a harsh difference compared > to the main vocabulary database. Considering the effect of a less > fine grained tagging: People will be presented a list of (guess) > 20 items instead of 3-5 items for the more fine grained list, but > I think 20 packages in a list are manageable. The danger of "bloating" > the system with about 15 more packages you might not need is not > really a thing many people are scary about.
Sorry, I can't really follow your thoughts here, do you vote against a fine-grained tagging? With the fine-grained tags, you will have more tags, but usually a smaller result set (i.e. package list). So what you are bloating is the vocabulary (the set of all available tags and facets). > > Another way would be to provide > > them in a different vocabulary/tag database - debtags supports multiple > > of those. > > Just for the sake of academical interest: What are the consequences of > a differnet vocabulary/tag database? I guess the drawback is higher > than a fine grained tagging. Advantages: * clean separation * you keep the full expressivity of the main vocabulary (i.e. you can add tags into the other facets like works-with, made-of...) Disadvantages: * additional administrative overhead for hosting the tag database * additional overhead for users of this tag database, which must be enabled one way or another * tagging infrastructure must be provided (or happen centrally by the Debian-med team) > > +Tag: field::biology:bioinformatics > > +Description: Bioinformatics > > + Sequence analysis software. > > + > > +Tag: field::biology:molecular > > +Description: Molecular biology > > + Software useful to molecular cloning and related wet biology. > > + > > +Tag: field::biology:structural > > +Description: Structural biology > > + Software useful to model tridimentional structures. > > + > > > > This is probably a reasonable distinction, though we have to decide if > > we want such a fine-grained separation of the "field" facet. > > I also wonder whether we gain much at users and. It might happen that > users have a slightly different perception of these terms and we could This would hint to have them only inside a special debian-med:: area. > > We would > > also end up with needing the same level of detail for electronics, > > chemistry, physics,... > > Well, this is always the same - you need someone who does the job. > Debian-Med just joins forces for people interested in medicine and > biology so we are a little bit ahead. :) Sure, I am not saying that we actually *need* the level of detail there, but that eventually the same level of detail will arise in the other areas, which will bloat the vocabulary. Regards Ben _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list Debtags-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel