Hallo, I am writing to our list, so whoever is officially answering Benjamin might want to consider ... On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:20:58 Benjamin Mesing wrote: > also be ok, since we wouldn't have anything to do with that ;-). We > would like to put the following tags in the main hierarchy either way: > * field::medicine > * use::comparison (though Enrico warned about the name - we would > imagine a diff tool from that, but I think it is just fine to > use it with different interpretation) I think the understanding of a diff tool is fine. It is a ranked diff, though. > * use::analysis > * field::medicine:imaging (I wouldn't want to place that into > biology:: and don't see the need for a med:: facet yet) d'accord, I think. > If there are no objections I will add those in roughly a week. > > And the following tags in the biology facet (note that I have adapted > some of the tag names): > * ::bioinformatics, ::molecular-biology, ::structural-biology > (though those could go into field::biology if you rather see > that) biology::structural-biology I would not mind to see instead as biology::molecular-biology:structural ... nice? not so? > * ::format:aln, ::format:fasta, ::format:nexus (or would you > rather have aln-format, fasta-format,..?) I prefer ::format:aln > * ::emboss biology::emboss is strange, I think. Sadly, it addresses many fields that we have just split apart. > * ::nucleic-acids, ::peptides I would them have underneath ::molecular-biology, I think. > * ::alignment-analysis, ::phylogeny-analysis (if you really think > this is neccessary) This I would prefer as biology::analysis:alignment. biology::analysis:phylogeny, biology::analysis:interaction. We do not have databases in Debian much, yet. But where would they go? Is "analysis" possibly not the right term? Is "::investigation" better? > Once this is agreed upon and the remaining questions are answered, I > will add the biology facet. Hm. > We are not sure about the ::algorithm:* thing. They are not biology > specific so it would be odd to put them there. Agreed. > Besides, Enrico pointed > out, that nearly everything (at least the software) is made-of > algorithms. I can agree here, too. > Additionally, to me the whole made-of facet does not seem > very concise anyways... The motivation is to see SSAHA and from the tags learn: ah, this does nucleotide sequence comparisons and searches with some hashing. Blast probably uses some hashing somewhere, too, but dynamic programming is what is key to its functionality. Hm. Steffen -- Dr. Steffen Möller University of Lübeck Institute for Neuro- and Bioinformatics Ratzeburger Allee 160 23538 Lübeck Germany T: +49 451 500 5504 F: +49 451 500 5502 moeller@inb.uni-luebeck.de
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.