Re: Which DebTag for Debian-Med ?
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Steffen Moeller wrote:
If I'd have a veto
You want a veto? NEVER. ;-)
But I think there is no real veto necessary to make reasonable suggestions. :)
then I would use it against a very early suggestion of
field::medicine::bio(logy).
examples:
field::medicine:pharmacy
fine
field::medicine:imaging
I do not like this one as imaging is a technology rather than a subfield like
vets or pharmacy. Radiologists, dermatologists and many other disciplines
have tons of images. But admittedly I do not see a way around it, really, as
we are all used to talk about "medical imaging" as a field.
You are right here. The categories were just born out of missing better
alternatives. They are not always stringent and as long as we have less
than 10 dependencies I see no reason for a split. But we might reach
this artificial border sooner or later and it might be reasonable to
think about a useful split at this point in time.
field::medicine:practice
fine, I would not mind "information systems" instead of practice, though.
Or we should distinguish between practicioners, dentists and hospital
systems. It sounds at least reasonable to distiguish between small
practices and hospitals because the software in these fields will be
most probably not be identical.
fields::biology::sequence
fields::biology::sequence::dna
fields::biology::sequence::rna
fields::biology::sequence::protein
fields::biology::structure
fields::biology::interaction
fields::biology::genomics
fields::biology::proteomics
fields::biology::metabolomics
Could you please add at least one package to each of these?
Ah, right and on formats. The following come to mind:
works-with-format::biology::fasta
works-with-format::biology::aln
works-with-format::biology::pdb
works-with-format::biology::embl (EMBL-format works both for protein and
nucleotide sequences)
works-with-format::biology::...
Ahhh, this is a VERY important hint.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: