-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (Hi Blaine - been long time :-) )
On 19-05-2005 23:44, Blaine Cook wrote: > Up 'till now, it's been very steeped in OWL and formal ontologies I don't really know OWL, just throwing it at you all for discussion. So thanks for providing alternatives. > I'm sure you're all familiar with del.icio.us [1], so that's what I'm > thinking. As a matter of fact, I was _not_ aware of that. Thanks! > The complexity of all the systems that have been described thus far is > a primary concern - if we want to have maintainers adopt tagging, it > needs to be done in as simple a way as possible, with the possibility > for growth later. (snip) > 2. Use the fact that every debian package has an unique URI to enable > tagging by anyone. Are you aware that what Holger and I is trying here is to have two different communities collaborate on a single shared set of tags? The FAI community has a big pool of configuration tweaks, package subselections and other control info for automatic setup of huge networks - all tied to what they call "FAI classes". Debtags aims at package tagging only, but in a similar global mindset in their choice of groupings called "facets". I am not against your proposal to let the facets/classes "evolve", but beware that apart from the relatively high starting point of developing a framework for a central "evolution spot", we also need to either adopt current classes and facets, convince (development parts of) existing communities to adapt, or provide translation mechanisms between synonymous facets/classes (which means we could perhaps use *both* del.icio.us, OWL and whatever local to each technology...?) > 3. Create a couple of simple scripts that interact with a simple web > API [3] to support tagging on the command line. The critical scripts > would be: > a. "debtag <package> <tag>*" to enable user-tagging, and > b. "fetch-debtags <package>" to assist maintainers in adding > debtags to their packages (to enable local apt-cache searches on tags). Again, remember that package tagging is only part of the grand idea - but your suggestion may still fit... > Does this all make sense? I can definitely provide background material > that supports this argument. I'm *not* suggesting that we should > abandon all hope of creating a structured ontology for packages - I > believe the package-space is small enough that this could be > accomplished to some degree, but I'm also willing to bet that with a > rich del.icio.us-like tag infrastructure, and adoption by users, some > smart RDF or infosys hackers could automatically build it based on > popularity. Sounds perfectly sane to me. Especially if adding synonym handling. Wo, when do we start? :-D > Another point to consider is that the formal ontology largely eschews > internationalization - freeform tagging means that different linguistic > communities can determine their own most-appropriate tags, rather than > having a worker group dedicated to translating tags (usually badly). Could you please elaborate? Localized _presentation_ of facet/class/tag names should not collide with internal names being restricted to ASCII, or? I'd compare tag names (and faceet/class names) with package names, and those need be unique. What could then be localized is short (and long?) descriptions of those unique names. - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nÃr: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCjfpCn7DbMsAkQLgRAoFcAKCM7tlI3CWd4TMIX7506BjArFdVUgCgiKT8 2Gp8uYnk8ttocfm5Ne0FRbk= =3uug -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
