Re: Package categories
Felipe Figueiredo <philsf79@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thursday 24 July 2008 03:29:00 Christophe Prud'homme wrote:
> > > === Finite Element Analysis ===
> > > proposed -- field::physics:fea
> > > (it isn't clear to me that this should be in physics rather than
> > > engineering, so maybe field::fea would be better)
>
> In the particular example of FE, it's "made" in a Mathematics/Numerical
> Analysis framework, but most popularly used in Physics and Engineering. IMO,
> this is the core of this discussion.
>
> Does the tagging take into account the Field that uses the technique, or the
> one that makes/improves it? Maybe there should be some discussion in regard
> to policy to this matter, if there hasn't already been one.
>
I'm not goint to debconf, but for those that are, perhaps they can
discuss this in person - particularly with Enrico.
A useful outcome would be a clear set of guidelines on how the current
tags should be used. Ideally uploaded to the debtags wiki (and
referenced from the DebianScience wiki)
Another outcome is a list of possible further tags - or how to use
the current tags to best effect[1].
Chris
[1] A tag I'm wondering about is one that addresses the concept of
dealing with crystal/molecular structure - molecular graphics packages
do this along with visualisation, but so do things like various
crystallography packages and EXAFS packages.
Reply to: