Re: Summary of Debian Science BOF at DebConf
Hi,
[I put debtags-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org in CC because your posting
is heavily related to DebTags.]
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:38:14PM +0200, Christian Kastner wrote:
> 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...
I'd consider your DebTags suggestion as an additional point which is
missing on the Wiki page[1]. Would you consider adding it there for
enabling a better decision process. IMHO, sequences of quotes in the
mailing list are not that helpful. (If debtags-devel@l.a.d.o has
better means for discussing DebTags I'd be happy to learn about this.)
> 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
ACK
> * -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?)
ACK
> 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 --
Could you please be a bit more verbose for people who are not experts in
the Machine Learning field? I'm not fully convinced here that we need
extra facets - but this might just be me. We currently have about 40
packages in this task and it might be a critical mass for a more detailed
specification, but I do not feel able to decide and I guess DebTaggers
will feel similarly.
> 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.
Interesting suggestion. Sounds somehow reasonable.
> 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.
I admit I was not as deeply involved in this DebTag design as I should
have been. If I remember correctly this exception which was made for
biology was done because of the Debian Med project. In principle you
are right that there is no objective reason to handle Biology
differently than other sciences. However, it should be clarified how to
implement biology tags like
biology::nuceleic-acids
biology::peptidic
biology::format:*
> On a lesser note, the implemented-in:: facet is missing
> implemented-in::octave.
ACK
> As I said, there were other issues, but I'll have to research them a bit
> more.
It would be great if you could take over this job (including propagating
your suggestions to a Wiki which could be helpful in the design phase).
If the DebTag design might in the end be more compatible to our tasks
there might be better chances to map them and use DebTags more heavily
in our Blends tasks.
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience/ProblemsToWorkOn
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: