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

[Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>]

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

     Andreas. 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de