Re: Tag types - reorganizing all tags - task force
On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 06:54:22AM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
> 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
I would vote for this one. Notice also that earlier threads on this
subject spoke about package categories, and that many others use the
categories (like scientific papers and such).
Also i guess it is much easily translatable as tags.