Re: Bug#361418: Debian menu and the Apps/Science section
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 23:42 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
> > Where do you make the difference between a scientific and an educational
> > software product? Let's say: What is a chemical structures editor? What
> > is a (software realized) calculator with scientific functions (like
> > those who are mostly used in education)?
> >
>
> As far as I understood the basic rules to tag applications,
> the answer is not a "one ot the other" decision.
> The chemical structureditor can be used for both purposes.
> Thus add the application in 2 entries of the tree.
Uhh. Probably not a good idea. I guess, then you end up with 90% of the
application in both entries of the tree and just 10% in one or the other
entry.
> Due to my opinion, that when doing Science Research you know the basics
> where in Teaching/Education you have more applications which tell you
> about the basics.
Yes. But these are the extremas. I don't think, that you can take bunch
of applications and say, what the user itself knows about the basics or
for what the user uses the software.
> The latter is like:
> how to do integration or differentiation, waht are Newton's rules in
> gravity
> the first is like:
> when I apply several of the basic rules to these measurements under
> given constraints
> then one can proof the existance of a sub-particle for a few nano
> seconds in nuclear physics.
Yes. But these are clear examples. I have a repository full of chemistry
related packages. One e.g. supports a bunch of quantum chemistry
packages. But it is designed to help users of these packages. The
application itself doesn't teach anything, but it helps teaching quantum
chemistry packages. So I just need a clear definition, when to put an
application into Education and when to put an application into Science.
> > Just think about, that you _must_ define the answer for at least the
> > first question if you make a difference in Debian's menu between
> > education and science. I'm really not happy with dividing between them,
> > because IMHO there is no clear difference.
> >
>
> I know that may be tricky and you are right.
> That's why I try to separate by learning/teaching already known basics
> :== Education and applying that find (new) rules or to improve exising
> rules :== Science/Research by top-down classification going from most
> global/abstract to more specific/specialised.
Ok. But staying at the example of a simple structures editor (I know
more then 6 in the OS scene): It is not designed to teach the user nor
is it designed to find new rules or improve anything. It's just a tool
used in educational and scientific institutions.
> For example. lots of math aplications one can use in physics, chemistry,
> bio, astronomy, ... too as compuatation is very common. The tricky
> point may be to find an abstraction.
Ok. But in this case it's IMHO easier.
> An application knowing all the keppler rules where you can focus on high
> level astronomical things would be category Astronomy.
If that's the main function/feature/job, ACK.
> But you can use
> a programmable common language and add lots of functions as addional
> modules. Without the modules is would be Math.
Ok. Let's say, the main function/job/role makes the difference, so only
applications which are real teaching programs (like e.g. tools to teach
langauges or the PSE like kalzium or gperiodic) have to go into
Education. All other applications go into Science, independent if they
are used in school or university science education or for research.
Regards, Daniel
Reply to: