[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Committed tags for debian-med

Charles, Benjamin,

On Saturday 15 September 2007 03:21:10 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 07:15:31PM +0200, Benjamin Mesing a écrit :

> > +Tag: field::biology:bioinformatics
> > +Tag: field::biology:molecular
> > +Tag: field::biology:structural
> Should we remove the field::biology tag when using one of its childs?
> For instance, if we use field::biology:molecular, will the package still
> show up in searches for field::biology?

I hope it does. We should strive for non-redundant annotations.

> For field::biology:bioinformatics, I think that I agree with Steffen
> that bioinformatics is very vague. It could be replaced by
> sequence-analysis, although had we works-with::sequence we could use it
> in conjunction with use::analysis (and I still think that
> works-with:;sequence is not overspecialised, compared for instance to
> works-with::music-notation, or works-with::image:raster).
We could have "works-with::structures", too. This has a nice ambiguity for, 
e.g., software that addresses architecutral planning or so which also work 
with 3D structures but not in the field::biology. I think I like that kind of 

I could imagine that a main motivation to open new field:: tags may be in 
clarifying the direction in which the use:: or works:: facets shall be 
interpreted. And maybe I may indeed interpret you, Charles, in a way that 
field::biology:bioinformatics, er, I mean :sequence-analysis :o) , is indeed 
not needed and possibly also :structures could be omitted. I would not see a 
substitute for field::biology:molecular, though. 

Major concepts I'd like to see are use::prediction and then there is a real 
lot we need to talk about, still. But maybe we should indeed wait until more 
packages are available in Debian.

Best regards,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: