[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Gathering package upstream meta-data in the UDD. (was: Re: more formally indicating the registration URL)

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:59:31AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Since most of the information apart from the bibliographic references is
> currently sparse, I propose to only import the bibliographic material for the
> moment.

Makes sense.

> If it fits wells the blends script that creates the web sentinels,
> perhaps the ???long??? format (package name / keyword / value) will help us to keep
> the system most simple. Also, that is the closest to an RDF tuple???

I don't think that it is a good idea to aggregate all the bibliographic
information into a text field.  This makes no sense if you want to
attract a more general usage.  IMHO we should go with

    package    text,
    title      text,
    authors    text
    published-in text,
    year       int,
    url        text,
    doi        text

at least.  We should decide whether to allow more than one bibliographic
information dataset per package (and how to distinguish these).

Kind regards



Reply to: