FWIW, the 100 or so GCompris activities have an internal organization as well:
maths physics puzzles reading amusements strategy games discovery learn about the computer -walter On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Gary C Martin<g...@garycmartin.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > On 10 Jun 2009, at 17:48, James Simmons wrote: > >> Martin, >> >> First and foremost ASLO has to make sense to grade school kids and >> their teachers. That's why I didn't care for GCompris as a >> category. Now since we can give an Activity up to three Categories >> it might make sense to have one for the stuff that comes pre- >> installed. Other than that, does any kid or teacher care who >> maintains an Activity? > > As I said once before, I'm really not a fan of ontologies, it's all > shades of grey for me, but I guess we should try and get agreement on > some set. Can't be much worse than we have already! :-) > > Here's the thread from back in March when we last tried to move on this: > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-March/004715.html > >> For ASLO we might want teachers to suggest categories based on >> subjects taught. For instance, instead of "Documents" we might have >> "Reading" and "Writing" or "Reading and Writing". Instead of "Media >> Creation" and "Media Playing" we could have "Art" and "Music". > > Not too much input from existing teachers unfortunately back then, but > the list I was keeping track of ended up at something like the below: > > Art > Communication > Games > Geography > Literacy > Maths > Music > Programming > Science > Utilities > > How does this seem to folks, anything missing or could be better > named? Was trying to keep the list reasonably short and non-technical. > > Regards, > --Gary > >> Among ourselves we can make any taxonomy we like, but for the public >> face of Sugar Activities we have to remember the target audience. >> >> Any discussion of taxonomy reminds me of grocery shopping on >> Sundays. Whoever does the taxonomies for Jewel and Dominick's seems >> to have no purpose in mind other than keeping me in the damned store >> as long as possible. On the other hand Costco arranges stuff in >> reasonable categories. >> >> James Simmons >> >> >> Martin Dengler wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:34:29PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote: >>> >>>> I think that's a great idea - will be very helpful in identifying >>>> the >>>> "classics". >>>> >>> >>> It'd be great if the classifications found happened to, or could be >>> easily made to, be sensibly related to the classifications used for >>> quite some time now: >>> >>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy >>> >>> Somthing like: >>> >>> "SL-maintained" / "classics" / "core" <--> Fructose >>> "community-maintained" / "others" <--> Honey >>> "pre-installed [on SoaS]" <--> Starch/Cellulose >>> >>> I'm not saying the existing Taxonomy is the sexiest or >>> most-comprehensible-to-the-outsider, but it's well-aligned with the >>> development/deployment processes and if we promote a completely >>> orthogonal categorization it may cause a troublesome impedence >>> mismatch. >>> >>> >>>> thanks >>>> >>>> Sean >>>> >>> >>> Martin >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> i...@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > > _______________________________________________ > IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) > i...@lists.sugarlabs.org > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel