Le Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:21:57PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing a écrit : > > There are two more things to consider: > 1. the users who do searching based on tags and > 2. the people doing the tagging. > With each tag, the complexity of the vocabulary will be increased and > only a small percentage of the people mentioned above is interested in > the level of detail provided by the med-specific tags.
Hello, nobody wants to be lost in a space with too many dimentions which are almost empty. This is why I would prefer to express the properties of the package with already existing tags rather than with private biology:: tags. But I will of course not oppose anybody using this approach, and will do my best so that the packages in our radar are using them appropriately if they exist. So unless there is a new idea popping out, my recommendation is to commit the tags for which we all aggreed on, and re-open the discussion in a few monthes where: - we in Debian-Med have extended our software coverage, - you have got diverse feedback from other Debian teams. Have a nice day, PS: > > biology::molecular-biology:structural instead of > > biology::structural(-biology) may horrify some of our colleagues, though. > > I think you have misread my proposal here. Or I am misunderstand you. > What would horrify your colleagues? That structural biology is a whole discipline of its own, and not a mere offspring of molecular biology ;) -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
