Re: Debtags for medical issues
Enrico Zini wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:26:06AM +0200, Steffen Moeller wrote:
>
>
>>distinction should be made on a higher level. And should it be
>>field::medicine::biology or rather field::biology::medicine? The latter
>>would make no sense in the way the CDD is currently been set up.
>>
>>
>This is difficult and interesting: anyone minds if I forward the whole
>thread to debtags-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org?
>
>
It is a perfect topic for an everlasting flame bait. Please spread it.
I think we can well decide if a single package has something to do with
genetics or bioinformatics or with physics, though we cannot decide,
from the user's perspective, how one domain is related to the other.
Such relationships are however determined by the tools suggesting,
recommending or extending each other. Again, these links will be
bidirectinal no matter what fields:: are being scetched.
Hence, the specialisation of the fields:: classification we should
strive to make irrelevant, creating tools the present the world to the
user as he is likely to perceive it, with dynamic interdependencies on
the basis of the tools that are installed already. Like, a matrix of
all-against-all in terms of debian/control-based interpackage links and
order the tools or the fields 2 or 3dimensionally after principal
component analysis. Sounds like an interesting and fairly quick research
project to me.
Many greetings
Steffen
Reply to: