Re: RFC: Keywords instead of Section
On Thu, 2001-11-15 at 18:15, Daniel_Burrows@brown.edu wrote:
> The main problem I have had with trying to do this is that
> it is often not obvious which "type" a keyword really is.
Granted.
> > (However, we must absolutely
> > not have a type called 'other' !!!)
>
> If you think a "miscellaneous" category is not necessary,
> you have not tried to categorize our packages. There are
> packages which truly defy categorization, and "misc" is
> better than having a separate "section" for every offbeat
> package out there.
The Freshmeat/SourceForge type "Topic" is vague enough.
> > I would suggest that instead of re-inventing the wheel, we
> > simply adapt the SourceForge/Freshmeat system for our own use.
>
> The code should be general. Whoever categorizes the
> packages is free to do whatever they want, but the code
> shouldn't lock us into a particular categorization scheme.
Agreed.
> Also, I'm skeptical about the Freshmeat system (aside from
> searching, I've never been able to find anything with it)
Okay, this is something that will require more discussion.
However, I adhere to the opinion that without typing of
keywords, the resulting classification system will turn
to mush. You can text search mush, but it's easier to
do that to the description fields that already exist.
--
Thomas Hood
Reply to: