Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:48:45 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@vader.cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: obrien@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/print/bibcard - Imported sources Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970411121142.16978I-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> In-Reply-To: <199704111709.KAA09493@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * Gawk! > * > * I'll refrain from giving a sermon about sloppy classification. > * You can probably find one in the mail archives... > > Maybe you still don't understand. It's not sloppy classification, but > just different points of view. :) <sermon type="abbreviated"> It is sloppy classification because, like a notable number of other ports I've griped about in the past, the classification CRITERIA is inconsistent. Classification schemes work only if uniform criteria are applied to ALL the entities being classified. Here we have a case of a bilbliographic DATABASE management tool being classified as print because it is indirectly related to TeX through a database format that bibtex uses. I've already explained why this sort of criteria is ultimately doomed to failure. Using the same sort of criteria, it could just as easily be put in the x11 category. In fact, its link to x11 is probably closer than it's link to TeX. It may be a different point of view, but it is sloppy regardless. I do have 7+ years working in libraries, both in cataloging and reference and have a fair amount of experience helping a wide range of users work with a wide variety different classification systems. With an MIS degree, and about half of a Phd in LIS, I also have a bit of theoretical training in the field so I don't think my views are entirely based on wild speculation. However, I'm not in change of the ports collection, I'm only trying to help make it more usable.* Think about it. What IS bibcard? A tool for managing bibliographic DATABASES. Do we have a database category? Yes! Simple consistent criteria == predictable classification. Complex criteria based on implicit relationships (to tex via a data format shared with bibtex) == unpredictable classification. </sermon> And now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. :) * After I get the overhaul of the mailing list archives finished, I'm going to work on making all the DESCR files searchable. This should help mitigate some of the classification problems. -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.970411121142.16978I-100000>