Le Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:25:27PM +0100, Michael Hanke a écrit : > > Are you saying that: > > Also-Known-As: > NeuroLex: someid > NITRC: some other id > > should rather be > > NeuroLex-ID: someid > NITRC-ID: some other id > > ? > > If that is the case, I'd like to have some reasoning what advantages > this would have. Currently, I can only see that disadvantage that the > logical/semantic grouping of fields with similar purpose is lost. After > all we do: > > Reference: > Author: ... > ... > > as well.
Hi Michael, in the case of a bibliographic reference, most informations (author, year, journal, page numbers, etc.) have little relevance when isolated from the other informations. On the other hand, the ID of an upstream work in a given database has a value independantly of the IDs in other databases. The advantage of using a single field for each ID is that the information is easily extracted by retreiving the debian/upstream file and filtering the line containing the field. If it were nested in a YAML mapping, then the only robust solution would be to parse YAML. Also, a simpler syntax means less syntax errors. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
