Re: let's etch a common way of using debtags for CDDs and beyond!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(Hi Blaine - been long time :-) )
On 19-05-2005 23:44, Blaine Cook wrote:
> Up 'till now, it's been very steeped in OWL and formal ontologies
I don't really know OWL, just throwing it at you all for discussion. So
thanks for providing alternatives.
> I'm sure you're all familiar with del.icio.us [1], so that's what I'm thinking.
As a matter of fact, I was _not_ aware of that. Thanks!
> The complexity of all the systems that have been described thus far is
> a primary concern - if we want to have maintainers adopt tagging, it
> needs to be done in as simple a way as possible, with the possibility
> for growth later.
(snip)
> 2. Use the fact that every debian package has an unique URI to enable
> tagging by anyone.
Are you aware that what Holger and I is trying here is to have two
different communities collaborate on a single shared set of tags?
The FAI community has a big pool of configuration tweaks, package
subselections and other control info for automatic setup of huge
networks - all tied to what they call "FAI classes".
Debtags aims at package tagging only, but in a similar global mindset in
their choice of groupings called "facets".
I am not against your proposal to let the facets/classes "evolve", but
beware that apart from the relatively high starting point of developing
a framework for a central "evolution spot", we also need to either adopt
current classes and facets, convince (development parts of) existing
communities to adapt, or provide translation mechanisms between
synonymous facets/classes (which means we could perhaps use *both*
del.icio.us, OWL and whatever local to each technology...?)
> 3. Create a couple of simple scripts that interact with a simple web
> API [3] to support tagging on the command line. The critical scripts
> would be:
> a. "debtag <package> <tag>*" to enable user-tagging, and
> b. "fetch-debtags <package>" to assist maintainers in adding
> debtags to their packages (to enable local apt-cache searches on tags).
Again, remember that package tagging is only part of the grand idea -
but your suggestion may still fit...
> Does this all make sense? I can definitely provide background material
> that supports this argument. I'm *not* suggesting that we should
> abandon all hope of creating a structured ontology for packages - I
> believe the package-space is small enough that this could be
> accomplished to some degree, but I'm also willing to bet that with a
> rich del.icio.us-like tag infrastructure, and adoption by users, some
> smart RDF or infosys hackers could automatically build it based on
> popularity.
Sounds perfectly sane to me. Especially if adding synonym handling.
Wo, when do we start? :-D
> Another point to consider is that the formal ontology largely eschews
> internationalization - freeform tagging means that different linguistic
> communities can determine their own most-appropriate tags, rather than
> having a worker group dedicated to translating tags (usually badly).
Could you please elaborate?
Localized _presentation_ of facet/class/tag names should not collide
with internal names being restricted to ASCII, or?
I'd compare tag names (and faceet/class names) with package names, and
those need be unique.
What could then be localized is short (and long?) descriptions of those
unique names.
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFCjfpCn7DbMsAkQLgRAoFcAKCM7tlI3CWd4TMIX7506BjArFdVUgCgiKT8
2Gp8uYnk8ttocfm5Ne0FRbk=
=3uug
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: