Re: Gathering package upstream meta-data in the UDD. (was: Re: more formally indicating the registration URL)
Le Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:05:17PM +0100, Andreas Tille a écrit :
>
> > If it fits wells the blends script that creates the web sentinels,
> > perhaps the ???long??? format (package name / keyword / value) will help us to keep
> > the system most simple. Also, that is the closest to an RDF tuple???
>
> I don't think that it is a good idea to aggregate all the bibliographic
> information into a text field. This makes no sense if you want to
> attract a more general usage. IMHO we should go with
>
> package text,
> title text,
> authors text
> published-in text,
> year int,
> url text,
> doi text
Hi Andreas,
This is more or less what I meant by “long” format (in the sense of R’s
reshape() function). In order to fit this information in a SQL table, I was
more thinking about:
package title text
package authors text
package published-in text
package year text
etc.
> We should decide whether to allow more than one bibliographic
> information dataset per package (and how to distinguish these).
In a previous discussion (which I can not find for the moment), there was no
objection to do the contrary: support only one reference. The web sentinel has
currently the same limitation anyway. In the case a package contains multiple
programs to be cited with multiple articles, I was considering using a field
with a name like ‘Reference-List-URL’, that contains a link to an upstream web
page that contains all the instructions and references. Such pages are usually
available in these cases.
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
Reply to: