Re: Additional fields in debian/upstream?
Le Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 01:25:27PM +0100, Michael Hanke a écrit :
>
> Are you saying that:
>
> Also-Known-As:
> NeuroLex: someid
> NITRC: some other id
>
> should rather be
>
> NeuroLex-ID: someid
> NITRC-ID: some other id
>
> ?
>
> If that is the case, I'd like to have some reasoning what advantages
> this would have. Currently, I can only see that disadvantage that the
> logical/semantic grouping of fields with similar purpose is lost. After
> all we do:
>
> Reference:
> Author: ...
> ...
>
> as well.
Hi Michael,
in the case of a bibliographic reference, most informations (author, year,
journal, page numbers, etc.) have little relevance when isolated from the
other informations.
On the other hand, the ID of an upstream work in a given database has a value
independantly of the IDs in other databases.
The advantage of using a single field for each ID is that the information is
easily extracted by retreiving the debian/upstream file and filtering the line
containing the field. If it were nested in a YAML mapping, then the only
robust solution would be to parse YAML. Also, a simpler syntax means less
syntax errors.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: