Re: New tags for biology and medicine.
On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 09:11 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 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:
> > * 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)
> > * 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)
> 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.
I think you have misunderstood me. It's the same that I thought.
Therefore I left it in the field:: facet as field::medicine:imaging.