Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 13:21 +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille: > There is no reason to leave out a package in Biology just because it > is primarily targeting at chemists. The rationale behind our work > is *not* finding proper categories where a package might fit in general > but whether it is of use for a certain user category. (A package is > not like a book that can sit only in one shelf - either chemestry or > biology - it might be useful in more than one working field.) Sure. I just wanted to express that there is not much sense in having a task that is effectively the combination of two or more other tasks. > Do you want to suggest a med-biochemestry or med-bio-structural > package? I did not suggest that since I wasn't sure if that makes sense. I'd have to look at the package list in more detail. I might make sense, though, to have them distinct since the area of overlap is usually small. I'll have a look at it. (If I have some spare cycles not related to MPI.) Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil