Felipe Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Monday 04 August 2008 13:58:51 Adam C Powell IV wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 19:28 +0100, Chris Walker wrote: > > > Adam C Powell IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [snip] > > > > These are some of the reasons I think keywords or tags are more > > > > appropriate than "categories". But keywords/tags don't lend themselves > > > > to well-organized websites... > > > > > > If there is an obvious set of tags, can you suggest them here. > > > > Okay, here's a start: > > * PDE-solver > > * finite-elements > > * boundary-elements > > * finite-differences > > * integrated-mesher > > * integrated-visualization > > * fluid-dynamics > > * solid-mechanics > > * heat-mass-transfer > > * radiation > > * electromagnetics > > * multi-domain > > * multi-thread > > * MPI > > * PVM > > * works-with [Salomé | gmsh | VTK ...] > > > > This list can grow arbitrarily if we let it. > > How about using a standard library's (those with shelves and dead-tree books) > classification system? This kind of problem should be solved by now, right? > There should be an easy way to import an ISO-like list of > categories/classes/tags. Anyone here knows a good librarian? >
A friend of mine does - and this is what he says: Owen Massey wrote: > On 6 Aug 2008, at 13:46, Dan Sheppard wrote: >> I don't know if you could help with this Debian question, Owen, using >> your 31337 classification skills? >> >> There's a category of engineering software which is getting rather >> large, and software often straddles categories, and are thinking of >> moving to some sort of faceted list from a taxonomy. >> >> The project seems to be looking for classifications (of whatever kind) >> from the world of library as a starting point. Though software itself >> might not be in (eg LCC [is this a QA thing or a T thing?], DCC), there >> might be a category of books dealing with the software, or perhaps there >> is a specialist software classification? > > A librarian writes: > > Traditional library classifications are built around books -- > specifically, published books. So there is a slot for PDEs because > there are lots of books about PDEs; there will be a slot for PDE > solvers iff someone's written a book about PDE solvers. > > The Dewey classification failed to anticipate how important computing > would become. Computer books are split between 'computer science' > (generalities) and 'data processing' (technology). Most applications of > computing -- that is, software programs -- have Dewey numbers > constructed from the number for their function followed by 0285 for > 'Computer applications', which doesn't add much in this case. > > The Library of Congress classification puts software in QA76.75 as a > subclass of mathematics. I haven't used LCC in anger so I can't report > how much detail there is in the subclassification. (There are other > general library classifications but I don't believe any of them to be up > to date.) > > Library classifications for specific fields exist and may help if > they're publicly available: > > ACM Computing Classification System http://www.acm.org/class/ > Mathematics Subject Classification http://www.ams.org/msc/ > Physics and Astronomy Classification http://www.aip.org/pacs/ > > Engineering is much more fully developed than software in Dewey and > LCC. Should the classification be by type of software or by subfield of > engineering? Answer: yes. You're not limited online to a single > classification point for a book. > > * * * > > That's *classification* dispensed with; perhaps more relevant to the > problem at hand is *categorisation*. I believe computer scientists talk > about 'taxonomies' and 'ontologies' where librarians talk about > 'thesauri' and 'controlled vocabularies'. > > I suppose two things are important for the information architecture of > the website: > > 1) controlled vocabulary: user looks for 'electromagnetics', you offer > 'electromagnetism' > 2) hierarchy: user looks for 'fluid dynamics', you offer 'fluid > mechanics' (more general) or 'aerodynamics' (more specific) > > Library schemes are traditionally strong on 1) and weak on 2). Only > categorisations which call themselves 'thesauri' have a fully-formed > hierarchy. The joy, though, is that any object can and should have > multiple categorisations. Have a look at Wikipedia's ad hoc but > effective categorisation scheme. Then have a look at > taxonomywarehouse.com. > > Most thesauri are developed for commercial bibliographic indexes and > aren't readily available. The NASA Thesaurus covers engineering and is > available free of charge (and presumably free of copyright as a US > government publication), though only in PDF: > > http://www.sti.nasa.gov/98Thesaurus/vol1.pdf > http://www.sti.nasa.gov/98Thesaurus/vol2.pdf > > * * * > > I'm not sure how much this helps: it may be using a sledgehammer to > crack a nut. But please excerpt and redistribute as you see fit. > > Best, > Owen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]