2010/3/24 Benjamin Mesing <[email protected]>: > 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. _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
