Re: New tags for biology and medicine.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
We had a short discussion on IRC about your proposal, and as far as we
are concerned, Option 2. would be Ok for us (obviously Option 1. would
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:
* 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)
* field::medicine:imaging (I wouldn't want to place that into
biology:: and don't see the need for a med:: facet yet)
I'm perfectly fine with this except the last item. The currently
available packages for medical imaging do definitely not belong into
a biology section. It is clearly about medicine and handles medical
image formats like DICOM. Moreover we have a medical practice management
system (GNUmed) which does not really fit in any yet existing category.
If there are no objections I will add those in roughly a week.
This would be great.
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
* ::format:aln, ::format:fasta, ::format:nexus (or would you
rather have aln-format, fasta-format,..?)
* ::nucleic-acids, ::peptides
* ::alignment-analysis, ::phylogeny-analysis (if you really think
this is neccessary)
Once this is agreed upon and the remaining questions are answered, I
will add the biology facet.
I would regard this as a very reasonable compromise.
We are not sure about the ::algorithm:* thing. They are not biology
specific so it would be odd to put them there. Besides, Enrico pointed
out, that nearly everything (at least the software) is made-of
algorithms. Additionally, to me the whole made-of facet does not seem
very concise anyways...
I trust in Enricos sane experience. ;-))