Re: Summary of Debian Science BOF at DebConf
On 10/01/2010 01:47 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> well, I would have loved really cool responses to the summary and todo
> list of the Debian Science Workshop. Did we completely lost momentum
> after DebConf or is just everybody busy fixing RC bugs for a soon
> Squeeze release???
>
> The only result of my mails was an edit from Yaroslav who clarified
> the BibTeX suggestion. Anything else?
I've been meaning to suggest new tags for a while now, but as I didn't
have anything to tag lately, it slipped my mind...
Some issues I recall from the past (incomplete, I will amend this list
sometime soon):
The fields:: facet currently contains a subset of the fields as defined
by the task files. It would be nice to have missing tasks (where
relevant) included here, namely:
field::engineering
field::cognitive-neuroscience
field::machine-learning
* -dev tasks not mentioned would be covered by field:: + devel::
* typsetting is covered by use::typesetting
* viewing is covered by use::viewing
* image analysis is covered by use::analysing (+ what?)
As I am personally focused on the machine learning task, I could even
imagine finer distinctions such as:
field::machinelearning:supervised
field::machinelearning:unsupervised
-- etc --
The science:: facet has some overlap with the use::facet, for example:
science::calculation
use::calculating
science::visualization
use::viewing (description says: "Data Visualization")
Personally, I'd prefer to see all these generalized to uses:: and
specialized by field:: or whatever, if that is even necessary. For
example, there is:
science::plotting
So what about all other uses of plotting? I think use::plotting would be
much more appropriate. Same goes for modelling, etc.
I also find that the facet biology:: is misplaced at the top level. It
appears redundant to field::biology and IMHO doesn't fit in with the
other top-level facets.
On a lesser note, the implemented-in:: facet is missing
implemented-in::octave.
As I said, there were other issues, but I'll have to research them a bit
more.
Christian
Reply to: