On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 09:38:31PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > > 2) Do you forsee tags being maintained outside of the packages in the > > future? For developing the tag system this makes sense, but it seems to > > me that maintainers should have more direct control over this somehow. > > We've been thinking about having the maintainers responsible for the > tagging of their packages, with the risk of ending up with untagged or (..) > > This is another of the issues that need some more in-field experience to > see what design decisions should be taken next. Sorry to mention it again, but IMHO, if you want to be able to manage tags with packages constantly getting included in the archive you need an automated mechanism to help you. That's were document clustering and keyword abstraction might help, and that's were bow (the 'bag of words' library) might help. The packages descriptions make a good candidate for document clustering in the sense that you can determine if packages are 'related' to others by comparing descriptions. And you can even extract valuable keywords from packages by using techniques such as TFIDF. This method is also (mostly) language-agnostic so it can be useful for DDTP descriptions also. Regards Javi
Attachment:
pgpREtbCQgKQ6.pgp
Description: PGP signature