On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 11:50:19AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > I disagree. The tagging scheme you are proposing seems to be less > informative that the current one. You indeed loose the ability of > distinguishing whether a given package is implemented in a given > language or meant to be useful for a given language. > > It seems like a useful distinction to me.
It seems, but until you prove otherwise, i don't think it is :). The purpose of debtags is (IMO) to have a better way to search for packages. So the vocabulary needs to be driven by actual real-world needs. See also my other reply on the topic. > The information you're trying to obtain, namely "useful for coders in a > given language", is indeed relevant, but it seems a derived information > to me. It seems to be derivable from the following two implication: > > IF made-of::<language> THEN language::<language> > IF devel::lang:<language> THEN language::<language> It is derived, but i still think it is the more useful one. Right now, i would keep the targets low and "just" make a vocabulary that gives us a search tool that rocks. > I really think we need support for this kind of stuff above debtags, not > directly at the tagging level. > > /me mumbling about debtags-based ontologies ... no comment on that :-) -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com | +421907533216 http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
