[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)

Le Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:05:17PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
> > 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

Hi Andreas,

This is more or less what I meant by “long” format (in the sense of R’s
reshape() function). In order to fit this information in a SQL table, I was
more thinking about:

package	title	text
package	authors	text
package	published-in	text
package	year	text

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

In a previous discussion (which I can not find for the moment), there was no
objection to do the contrary: support only one reference. The web sentinel has
currently the same limitation anyway. In the case a package contains multiple
programs to be cited with multiple articles, I was considering using a field
with a name like ‘Reference-List-URL’, that contains a link to an upstream web
page that contains all the instructions and references. Such pages are usually
available in these cases.

Have a nice day,

Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan

Reply to: