Re: Tag types - reorganizing all tags - task force
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 01:06:53AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> "property" doesn't work, because the description is also a property, as
> are the dependencies, the version number...
> So the attached tags are a property, too.
Yeah, that's the downside of the "property idea".
> We probably could use the term "quality":
> 1. The condition of being of such and such a sort as
> distinguished from others; nature or character relatively
> considered, as of goods; character; sort; rank.
> But: ...
Yeah, I agree that quality has too may other meanings. In particular,
probably the most common usage of quality is to describe how good something
> I dislike using such a generic term. "Tag" kind of implies that someone
> has attached them, so they are subjective. I like that.
The problem with tag (although I'm not sure I can come up with anyting
better than tag) is that it not only implies that someone attached them,
but requires that the user know that someone has attached them. The term
tag doesn't imply at all that the tag describes some aspect of the package.
Maybe categories (again, there may be an existing, conflicting usage of
this term). To call a tag a category would imply that they had been
grouped together manually (i.e. categorized), but also implies that the
grouping is by some attribute or property. I think if a user sees a menu
entry "Browse by category", they are much more likely to be able to
correctly guess what it means than if it were to say "Browse by tag".