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