Re: Geography Specific Namespace
Jim Cromie wrote: Terrence Brannon wrote: OK, Ill concede its a bit over-dramatic, but it is an unfortunate historical fact that cant be easily corrected. Id hate to see the same mistake occur in every TLD. Ditto on that. Although its convenient to make the namespaces short as in Geo and Astro, I think it is more confusing in the long run to not name them more descriptively like Geography, Geology, Geometry, Astrology, and Astronomy. Ya, I always thought it weird what kind of stuff is strewn all over Geo::. Its really should be like schooling - you have different departments, Math, History, Geography, Archaeology, Biology, etc. So, that would mean geometry would be a subset of math, and would be Math::Geo:;, not plain old Geo::. Oh well. Perhaps a whole new namespace for geography stuff. How about... GIS::* (Bad idea, GIS is a subset of digitized geography) Geography::* Spatial::* I think most naiive people (e.g. me!) would look under Geo or Geography for this type of thing, so put it there. while Geography:: doesnt yet exist, it seems appropriate that it would. It might even result in a long-term migration. Aran, assuming that you have some non-trivial knowledge, can you elaborate on what GIS is, what youd expect to find in Geography::GIS, and what youre looking to create in relation to it ? Allright, well, Geography is a great namespace to start! I think it would be a good idea to plan out the namespace a little. I would like to propose coming up with a logical structure to the modules contained within Geography::. This would really just be a list of directories and module names and how they relate if at all. It would also describe justifications for choosing one name/structure over another. Then as module authors need geography functionality they can just write a module that fits in with the structure. Of course plans never quite fit the bill in practice, so it would just be a guideline. Comments, questions, moral support? I'd love to do this if its considered ok by the local gods. Aran
Re: Geography Specific Namespace
On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 09:26:04AM -0500, Aran Deltac wrote: Allright, well, Geography is a great namespace to start! I think it would be a good idea to plan out the namespace a little. I would like to propose coming up with a logical structure to the modules contained within Geography::. This would really just be a list of directories and module names and how they relate if at all. It would also describe justifications for choosing one name/structure over another. Then as module authors need geography functionality they can just write a module that fits in with the structure. Of course plans never quite fit the bill in practice, so it would just be a guideline. Comments, questions, moral support? A plan sounds like a good idea to me. Mark
Geography Specific Namespace
Jim Cromie wrote: Aran Deltac wrote: The intent of this data is for general purpose geographic comparison - not graphical mapping! Since youve bothered to make this point explicitly, perhaps the namespace could also say so. Hmmm, you're getting my wheels turning. Well, this is a good point. I'm deffinately not ruling out the possiblity of using Geo::Data modules for actual mapping, its just not the intent right now and is not optimized for this activity. If someone really needed this capability it would make much more sense to put some torpedos and hull plating on to Geo::Data rather than make a whole new namespace such as Geo::Data::Mapping or whatever it may be. IOW - what (related) namespace would carry the maps/mapping that youre not doing ? Geo::Mapping ? Geo::Maps ? Geo::Data::Mapping ? Theres already a Geo::GPS::Data, Do you have a suitable/corresponding 2LD that would work ? theres already a Geo::PostalCode - you might contact TJMATHER and inquire whether Geo::PostalCode::CensusData is fitting - if not, Geo::ZipCode::CensusData. CensusData is probably too specific, but Data needs somesort of qualifier, a 2LD, or a prefix. Well, this is neither postal code or census data. Some of this data is derived from the Census bureau, and one of the set is postal codes, but these namespaces would be misleading. Also, the combination of Geo::Distance and Geo::Data::US::ZCTA just about replaces Geo::PostalCode. Which, way back when, was my goal. Geo::PostalCode was designed to do one thing. I figured the something could be written that same thing plus a whole lot more. Thus came Geo::Distance, and just recently the Geo::Data::* stuff. Naming the (not yet existing ?) namespaces that could share your environment is playing nice, youre inviting them to join your game. For instance, what if someone were trying to add modules to support Route-Planning, Navigation ? Hold that thought - IMO the Geo:: namespace is already a mess; it contains both Geometry and Geography stuff, and multiple Geo::Weather*, and Geo::Stormtracker all of which (in retrospect) could have been Geo::Weather:: Ya, I always thought it weird what kind of stuff is strewn all over Geo::. Its really should be like schooling - you have different departments, Math, History, Geography, Archaeology, Biology, etc. So, that would mean geometry would be a subset of math, and would be Math::Geo:;, not plain old Geo::. Oh well. Perhaps a whole new namespace for geography stuff. How about... GIS::* (Bad idea, GIS is a subset of digitized geography) Geography::* Spatial::* As a side note - as we explore and colonize more planets we may need to add on planet prefixes to this modules. Like Geography::Mars::* :) Geography::Data::* -- Objectisized geographic data. Geography::Coords::* -- Classes to represent coordinates and do conversions (similar layout to the Crypt::* modules) etc... How serious are people about putting in some effort to put an official stamp on a namespace for this kind of stuff? Does someone else want to figure this out, or is this thread on module-authors good enough to discuss it as a group, or should I head it up, or...? obviously this is just carping, but it begs the question : Is there sufficient justification for someone to write an Acme::Module::Rename ? collect advice on good Module-names collect techniques to support migration ie: perl -pi.bak tricks, and simple script to use them. old-name-closer.pl rewrites the existing package to new one. writes the last version of the old-namespace module, which wraps the new namespace one. maybe this is just POD of best practices.. No comments here. :) Thanks for the comments Jim. Aran my $martian = Geography::Planets-retrieve(name='Mars')- People-retrieve(antler_color='purple',limit=1,order_by='age'); $martian-say_hello(); Hello Mars! I imagine theres quite a bit out there - perhaps its worth collecting ? If anyone responds to this point, a new subject is probably warranted :-O Every data type has I want to hear people either cry or laugh hysterically before I actually show some code (I need to pod and do some organizing on it too). So, anyone find this intriguing? Also, are these namespaces ok? Aran .
Re: Geography Specific Namespace
Hold that thought - IMO the Geo:: namespace is already a mess; it contains both Geometry and Geography stuff, and multiple Geo::Weather*, and Geo::Stormtracker all of which (in retrospect) could have been Geo::Weather:: I dont think I would call that a mess. Geo is a good abbreviation for Geometry and Geography. Maybe a bit of a melting pot, but not a mess :) Ya, I always thought it weird what kind of stuff is strewn all over Geo::. Its really should be like schooling - you have different departments, Math, History, Geography, Archaeology, Biology, etc. So, that would mean geometry would be a subset of math, and would be Math::Geo:;, not plain old Geo::. Oh well. Perhaps a whole new namespace for geography stuff. How about... GIS::* (Bad idea, GIS is a subset of digitized geography) Geography::* Spatial::* I think most naiive people (e.g. me!) would look under Geo or Geography for this type of thing, so put it there.
Re: Geography Specific Namespace
Terrence Brannon wrote: Hold that thought - IMO the Geo:: namespace is already a mess; it contains both Geometry and Geography stuff, and multiple Geo::Weather*, and Geo::Stormtracker all of which (in retrospect) could have been Geo::Weather:: I dont think I would call that a mess. Geo is a good abbreviation for Geometry and Geography. Maybe a bit of a melting pot, but not a mess :) OK, Ill concede its a bit over-dramatic, but it is an unfortunate historical fact that cant be easily corrected. Id hate to see the same mistake occur in every TLD. Next thing you know, we'll have Astro::Zodiac, Astro::Oracle, Astro::NancyReagan invading the Astro namespace, which so-far contains only Astronomy stuff ;-) Ya, I always thought it weird what kind of stuff is strewn all over Geo::. Its really should be like schooling - you have different departments, Math, History, Geography, Archaeology, Biology, etc. So, that would mean geometry would be a subset of math, and would be Math::Geo:;, not plain old Geo::. Oh well. Perhaps a whole new namespace for geography stuff. How about... GIS::* (Bad idea, GIS is a subset of digitized geography) Geography::* Spatial::* I think most naiive people (e.g. me!) would look under Geo or Geography for this type of thing, so put it there. while Geography:: doesnt yet exist, it seems appropriate that it would. It might even result in a long-term migration. Aran, assuming that you have some non-trivial knowledge, can you elaborate on what GIS is, what youd expect to find in Geography::GIS, and what youre looking to create in relation to it ?
