Hi Tássia
> 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 :) I've given it some further thought. As I understand it, the line would be drawn like this: Facets where we can say: "If the facet has something to do with <Facetname> (e.g. network, x11, etc) the tags in the facet describe additional aspects of this". And then there are the other facets (role:: and use:: being perfect examples). The distinction is not perfect, e.g. ui:: being a corner case, you could ask: if the facet has a ui, what kind of UI has it? Or you just ask, what kind of UI does it offer. > 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. > The question to me is: What is the real world problem you are trying to solve? What benefit would come from distinguishing facets in such a way? It might be a conceptual step to group facets, but the additional work/complexity should serve a well defined purpose. > 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. Sure, and I appreciate that. I am merely stating my opinion on that. My premisis is "Keep it simple" (as long as possible). Best regards Ben -- GMX DSL: Internet, Telefon und Entertainment für nur 19,99 EUR/mtl.! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
