Re: Package categories
Felipe Figueiredo <philsf79@gmail.com> writes:
> On Monday 04 August 2008 13:58:51 Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> > On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 19:28 +0100, Chris Walker wrote:
> > > Adam C Powell IV <hazelsct@debian.org> writes:
[snip]
> > > > These are some of the reasons I think keywords or tags are more
> > > > appropriate than "categories". But keywords/tags don't lend themselves
> > > > to well-organized websites...
> > >
> > > If there is an obvious set of tags, can you suggest them here.
> >
> > Okay, here's a start:
> > * PDE-solver
> > * finite-elements
> > * boundary-elements
> > * finite-differences
> > * integrated-mesher
> > * integrated-visualization
> > * fluid-dynamics
> > * solid-mechanics
> > * heat-mass-transfer
> > * radiation
> > * electromagnetics
> > * multi-domain
> > * multi-thread
> > * MPI
> > * PVM
> > * works-with [Salomé | gmsh | VTK ...]
> >
> > This list can grow arbitrarily if we let it.
>
> How about using a standard library's (those with shelves and dead-tree books)
> classification system? This kind of problem should be solved by now, right?
> There should be an easy way to import an ISO-like list of
> categories/classes/tags. Anyone here knows a good librarian?
>
A friend of mine does - and this is what he says:
Owen Massey wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2008, at 13:46, Dan Sheppard wrote:
>> I don't know if you could help with this Debian question, Owen, using
>> your 31337 classification skills?
>>
>> There's a category of engineering software which is getting rather
>> large, and software often straddles categories, and are thinking of
>> moving to some sort of faceted list from a taxonomy.
>>
>> The project seems to be looking for classifications (of whatever kind)
>> from the world of library as a starting point. Though software itself
>> might not be in (eg LCC [is this a QA thing or a T thing?], DCC), there
>> might be a category of books dealing with the software, or perhaps there
>> is a specialist software classification?
>
> A librarian writes:
>
> Traditional library classifications are built around books --
> specifically, published books. So there is a slot for PDEs because
> there are lots of books about PDEs; there will be a slot for PDE
> solvers iff someone's written a book about PDE solvers.
>
> The Dewey classification failed to anticipate how important computing
> would become. Computer books are split between 'computer science'
> (generalities) and 'data processing' (technology). Most applications of
> computing -- that is, software programs -- have Dewey numbers
> constructed from the number for their function followed by 0285 for
> 'Computer applications', which doesn't add much in this case.
>
> The Library of Congress classification puts software in QA76.75 as a
> subclass of mathematics. I haven't used LCC in anger so I can't report
> how much detail there is in the subclassification. (There are other
> general library classifications but I don't believe any of them to be up
> to date.)
>
> Library classifications for specific fields exist and may help if
> they're publicly available:
>
> ACM Computing Classification System http://www.acm.org/class/
> Mathematics Subject Classification http://www.ams.org/msc/
> Physics and Astronomy Classification http://www.aip.org/pacs/
>
> Engineering is much more fully developed than software in Dewey and
> LCC. Should the classification be by type of software or by subfield of
> engineering? Answer: yes. You're not limited online to a single
> classification point for a book.
>
> * * *
>
> That's *classification* dispensed with; perhaps more relevant to the
> problem at hand is *categorisation*. I believe computer scientists talk
> about 'taxonomies' and 'ontologies' where librarians talk about
> 'thesauri' and 'controlled vocabularies'.
>
> I suppose two things are important for the information architecture of
> the website:
>
> 1) controlled vocabulary: user looks for 'electromagnetics', you offer
> 'electromagnetism'
> 2) hierarchy: user looks for 'fluid dynamics', you offer 'fluid
> mechanics' (more general) or 'aerodynamics' (more specific)
>
> Library schemes are traditionally strong on 1) and weak on 2). Only
> categorisations which call themselves 'thesauri' have a fully-formed
> hierarchy. The joy, though, is that any object can and should have
> multiple categorisations. Have a look at Wikipedia's ad hoc but
> effective categorisation scheme. Then have a look at
> taxonomywarehouse.com.
>
> Most thesauri are developed for commercial bibliographic indexes and
> aren't readily available. The NASA Thesaurus covers engineering and is
> available free of charge (and presumably free of copyright as a US
> government publication), though only in PDF:
>
> http://www.sti.nasa.gov/98Thesaurus/vol1.pdf
> http://www.sti.nasa.gov/98Thesaurus/vol2.pdf
>
> * * *
>
> I'm not sure how much this helps: it may be using a sledgehammer to
> crack a nut. But please excerpt and redistribute as you see fit.
>
> Best,
> Owen
Reply to: