Le Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 02:25:59PM +0100, Steffen Moeller a écrit : > On Monday 08 January 2007 10:41, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > > > I do not think that "suite" is the right choice, tagging with "field" is > > much more useful; as you can see, under "field" are such fields as > > astronomy, biology and chemistry already available. Adding > > "field::medicine" would be useful to me, and to put subclasses of > > medicine below it:
Hi all, Thijs has a point: with the suite:: tags I just would like to transfer existing information in the debtags system. In the future, the information could flow in the opposite direction, but this is up to the people developing the CDD framework. (the metapackages of debian-med are Custom Debian Distribution metapackages). > fields::biology::sequence > fields::biology::sequence::dna > fields::biology::sequence::rna > fields::biology::sequence::protein > fields::biology::structure > fields::biology::interaction > fields::biology::genomics > fields::biology::proteomics > fields::biology::metabolomics If we are affraid of not having enough packages to populate all the subfields, we could group all the omics with interaction, and call this systems-biology, or biology::systems. If necessary, we could revive the distinction in another facet, such as use for instance, like: field::biology::systems use::experimental::genomics::microarrays works-with-format::xml::miame or, in an example similar to Steffen's: field::biology::sequence use::analysis::comparison works-with-format::plaintext::aln If the debtags list agrees on the main lines, we could finalise the discussion on the debian-med list. By the way, does anybody knows an ontology of the scientific fields? This could save some time... Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
