On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 01:45:16PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > > I'm also entirely in favour of the restructuring of facet to remove the > > tags under biology, that I agree belong in the biology facet. > > Sorry, I do not understand this sentence. I mean, I'm ok with this part of the patch: Facet: field Status: controversial Comment: how broad is the definition of a "field"? @@ -563,18 +600,6 @@ Description: Aviation Tag: field::biology Description: Biology -Tag: field::biology:bioinformatics -Description: Bioinformatics - Sequence analysis software. - -Tag: field::biology:molecular -Description: Molecular Biology - Software useful to molecular cloning and related wet biology. - -Tag: field::biology:structural -Description: Structural Biology - Software useful to model tridimentional structures. - > > How about biology-edam facet, and a biology-format facet? > > Just to be sure: With this syntax you suggest really new facets and not > tags inside the biology facet, right? Yes, new facets with a biology-* prefix. I think that a facet should represent a specific point of view from which to look at the archive, and so I think it's best to have many biology-* facets if the biologists look at the archive from various points of view. > > We could also decide that each tag under "field" can act as a prefix for > > any number of field-specific facets, maintained by the people who > > package field-specific packages. > > Sounds like a good compromise to me. Ok! Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature