> > I noticed biology::format:fasta only after I suggested > > works-with-format::fasta. I'm now asking what the difference between > > the two would be. The two categories biology::format and > > works-with-format seem redundant. > > Hi Shaun, > > the biology:: facet was the product of a disucussion during which I had some > misunderstandings about debtags. I wouldn't mind to see it removed.
Well, actually I do not think this to be a misunderstanding. IMO the point of field specific facets (like biology) is to avoid cluttering of the global facets with information relevant only to a very special audience. So biology is not really a facet itself - more like a grouping concept. However, this was often an controversly discussed before. Conceptually the distinction between biology::works-with and works-with is definitly not there - its more like a view concept then. Perhaps adding view information to each tag (like general, biology, physics) would be a more appropriate way to go. But I believe right now field specific facets are a pragmatic approach for dealing with the complexity. Best regards Benjamin _______________________________________________ Debtags-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debtags-devel
