perhaps allowing for at most 3 categories a package can belong too?
Sure. 3 sounds like a good number to me.
so how many Rubyists are watching the super-bowl? or actually, how many
aren’t?
Super-bowl?
Is that like a big bowl?
No, I’m not a football fan.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:19:11AM +0900, Tom Sawyer wrote:
–
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant. Math Dept.
University of Maryland. (301) 405-5137
super what?
-a
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Tom Sawyer wrote:
so how many Rubyists are watching the super-bowl? or actually, how many
aren’t?
–
====================================
Ara Howard
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
Information and Technology Services
Data Systems Group
R/FST 325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80305-3328
Email: ahoward@fsl.noaa.gov
Phone: 303-497-7238
Fax: 303-497-7259
====================================
Tom Sawyer wrote:
A complex graph is harder to browse than a tree.
it would still be browsed just like a tree, only some packages would appear
under multiple nodes.
What about mimicking the ruby class/module structure. Every package
belongs to a primary category (which may be a subcategory of a
subcategory of a…) but also has a sequence of secondary
classifications, like mixins.
So for instance if someone writes a web server that calculates trig
functions and draws graphs, they might deicide it is primarily a web
server, but “mixes in” the Math and Graph categories.
When I browse under web stuff, I see the package. When I browse under
Graphs, or Math, the package is also listed, but perhaps not in the main
section, but under “see also Web Stuff…”
Actually this is more like primary/seconday inheritance in Dylan than it
is like Ruby’s inheritance, but maybe it still makes sense.
On Sunday 26 January 2003 04:55 pm, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Hmmmm… I’m a bit confused about this feature. When you introduced
it (in the Ruby comment above), it sounds like something tightly
integrated to RAA, which is great. But now, it seems you’re talking
about a separate Wiki, which I don’t think is good.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing more about it.
Gavin
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 2:07:26 PM, Hiroshi wrote:
Hi, Chad,
From: “Chad Fowler” chad@chadfowler.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:01 AM
Back to the style issue, we have a plan to introduce
wiki-like feature to RAA. That’s for linking proejcts
and for adding comments of users.
Nahi, when do you plan to implement this? I think this would go a really
long way toward making the RAA a lot more useful. Would be nice to have
an option to search the comments, and of course the Wiki-esque “What pages
link to this one?” feature.
We just installed tcpwrap and WEBrick and setup a prototype
app server for the wiki. I’ll do my best but at least
you won’t see it at end of Feb.
I use RWiki so it will have search and ‘What pages link to this one?’
features. Bear in mind there’s no WikiName in RD format.
There can be no reasonable objection to unifying these categories.
Whatever the policy of self-organisation, it’s important for the
administrator to step in once in a while to maintain some order.
Gavin
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 2:07:24 PM, Hiroshi wrote:
- The following sub-categories (or keywords) should be combined
because they are the same:In Application:
devel, Devel, Development, development => Development
MIdi, midi => MIDI
util, Util, Utility => Utility
In Library:
devel, Development => Development
graphics, Graphics => Graphics
Regex, Regular Expressions => Regular Expressions
I don’t like “arbitrary maintenance by others” and let owners to
self-organize category for now but your request seems quite
reasonable. I as a maintainer, should do above changes.
Folks, is there no objection?
Knowing what you can valuably search for means more powerful
searching, and means you can effectively browse as well - search
whatever categories (oops, I mean “keywords”) you are interested in.This equates, more or less, to multiple categorisation, but without
all the hassle of working out how to implement such a beast.Easy enough? Good enough?
Seems good, more than enough. We’ll be able to get standard keywords
from Category discussions of this thread, right?
Yes, the categories would be keywords (that doesn’t stop them from
being categories as well). But keywords are more than that. Here is
an incomplete list:
network
database
gui
graphics
audio
text
mathematics
science
algorithm
natural language
computer language
computer science
server
client
ruby modification
xml
cryptography
misc
games
console
compression
archiving
markup
bioinformatics
utility
framework
sysadmin
logging
version control
port
documentation
test
device
regex
wiki
thread
component
library
version control
ruby binding
Well, I went and completed it. I examined the list of all RAA
packages, and believe that they could all be nicely described by a
combination of the above words.
The list could be improved, no doubt, but it’s a pretty good start.
After releasing RAA/2.3, I’ll try some UI.
Excellent!
Gavin
On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 2:07:22 PM, Hiroshi wrote:
Great, Nahi. Thanks! This will be excellent.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:
Hi, Chad,
From: “Chad Fowler” chad@chadfowler.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:01 AMBack to the style issue, we have a plan to introduce
wiki-like feature to RAA. That’s for linking proejcts
and for adding comments of users.
Nahi, when do you plan to implement this? I think this would go a really
long way toward making the RAA a lot more useful. Would be nice to have
an option to search the comments, and of course the Wiki-esque “What pages
link to this one?” feature.We just installed tcpwrap and WEBrick and setup a prototype
app server for the wiki. I’ll do my best but at least
you won’t see it at end of Feb.I use RWiki so it will have search and ‘What pages link to this one?’
features. Bear in mind there’s no WikiName in RD format.
From: “Daniel Carrera” dcarrera@math.umd.edu
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:19 AMI certainly think that RAA should have a search feature.
Maybe I misunderstood you again, but does this English
sentence imply that RAA doesn’t have a search feature now?No. This sentence does not imply that RAA doesn’t have a search
feature.
It simply says that it’s a good thing. The sentence is a little
ambiguous.I see. Teacher, give me “F” at English reading (and composition).
No… we will give you a B in reading, and give the original
poster a C in English composition.
Hal
----- Original Message -----
From: “NAKAMURA, Hiroshi” nahi@keynauts.com
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: Can we attack the ‘not enough libraries’ thing straight on?
It’s your parent’s bowl, of course
martin
Hi, Gavin,
Ahh. I should not write about vaporware.
It will be implemented in test drive first and have a review stage.
If it seems only introduce confusing, we won’t merge wiki features
to RAA. I’m not a final decision maker.
From: “Gavin Sinclair” gsinclair@soyabean.com.au
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:49 PM
Hmmmm… I’m a bit confused about this feature. When you introduced
it (in the Ruby comment above), it sounds like something tightly
integrated to RAA, which is great. But now, it seems you’re talking
about a separate Wiki, which I don’t think is good.
I’m planning to run wiki engine as a back end RD ↔ HTML processing
system. I think it should be integrated tightly, too. We already have
separate Wiki at RubyGarden.
Anyway, I don’t write about this vaporware.
Regards,
// NaHi
Hi,
From: “Hal E. Fulton” hal9000@hypermetrics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:08 PM
I certainly think that RAA should have a search feature.
Maybe I misunderstood you again, but does this English
sentence imply that RAA doesn’t have a search feature now?
I see. Teacher, give me “F” at English reading (and composition).
poster a C in English composition.
No, no. I didn’t have to excerpt only 1 line.
I had to read context.
Regards,
// NaHi
After this discussion, I now better understand the reasons why the RAA
is as it is and also where it is likely heading. I think that having
developers abstract their own work (through keywords) is positive. I
think this approach can help foster an environment in which developers’
thinking can be more creative.
If keywords are more formally adopted, perhaps along the lines Gavin
has suggested, I would recommend that developers place their keywords
in ranked order based on their view of which keywords used are most
applicable. I think this would be helpful because it would provide
more information about the developer’s perceptions of the scope of
their library or application.
The focus of my thoughts has been on how the RAA appears to someone
encountering it from the outside and I am encouraged by the desire of
the RAA developers and maintainers to address this element head-on in
the future. I am also very appreciative of their work and hope that my
comments are helpful to them in carrying forward that work.
Regards,
Mark Wilson
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
[snip]
Yes, the categories would be keywords (that doesn’t stop them from
being categories as well). But keywords are more than that. Here is
an incomplete list:[snip]
i agree with you here. however, i think that the users should rank the
keywords (and perhaps many other things) : one of the cool things about
sourgeforge is that you can hit it a see instantly what’s popular. now, on
the RAA all you see is the most recent (which is also interesting). i think
any system developed which did not allow users to give feedback on a module
could never be as successfull as one which did. for example, a developer may
perceive that there package is good for templating pay reports, but users may
come along later and find that it’s templating abilities make it great for
cgi/html programing. of course, the ability to rank an entire module should
also be included. perhaps someone already mentioned something along these
lines but this thread has gotten so long - does that mean something? 
-a
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Mark Wilson wrote:
If keywords are more formally adopted, perhaps along the lines Gavin has
suggested, I would recommend that developers place their keywords in ranked
order based on their view of which keywords used are most applicable. I
think this would be helpful because it would provide more information about
the developer’s perceptions of the scope of their library or application.
–
====================================
Ara Howard
NOAA Forecast Systems Laboratory
Information and Technology Services
Data Systems Group
R/FST 325 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80305-3328
Email: ahoward@fsl.noaa.gov
Phone: 303-497-7238
Fax: 303-497-7259
====================================
If keywords are more formally adopted, perhaps along the lines Gavin has
suggested, I would recommend that developers place their keywords in ranked
order based on their view of which keywords used are most applicable. I
think this would be helpful because it would provide more information about
the developer’s perceptions of the scope of their library or application.
i agree with you here. however, i think that the users should rank
the keywords (and perhaps many other things)
Good thinking, but it’s important not to get ahead of ourselves. If
the basic feature was introduced (i.e. developers/administrators can
assign keywords and users can search for them), then I think 80% of
the potential will be achieved.
It’s important to keep that in mind because it will take a fair bit of
effort by our overstreched RAA representatives to get this done, and
we don’t want to complicate the task.
[…]
for example, a developer may perceive that there package is good for
templating pay reports, but users may come along later and find that
it’s templating abilities make it great for cgi/html programing.
I think this case is sufficiently rare to:
a) justify the “80%” judgement above; and
b) be confident that the keyword-set of the package can be “fixed” by
feedback to the package author
After all, if it were the case, then it would already have the keyword
“template”, so it would be found be a reasonably broad keyword search,
which is what people have to be prepared to do under this keyword
regime. It’s inexact but simple and powerful.
Gavin
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, 2:46:35 AM, ahoward wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Mark Wilson wrote:
I agree… first things first.
As for interface issues, I think it would be good
to make the most common keywords into checkboxes
(for purposes of uploading and/or searching). Then
there could be an “other” textfield.
Just a thought.
Hal
----- Original Message -----
From: “Gavin Sinclair” gsinclair@soyabean.com.au
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Can we attack the ‘not enough libraries’ thing straight on?
Good thinking, but it’s important not to get ahead of ourselves. If
the basic feature was introduced (i.e. developers/administrators can
assign keywords and users can search for them), then I think 80% of
the potential will be achieved.It’s important to keep that in mind because it will take a fair bit of
effort by our overstreched RAA representatives to get this done, and
we don’t want to complicate the task.
Yes. I expect all “official” keywords will be checkboxed, and a free
text field left for others. Administrators can monitor the existence
of unofficial keywords and decide whether to make them official, thus
streamlining searching.
But… first things first.
Gavin
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, 11:11:54 AM, Hal wrote:
It’s important to keep that in mind because it will take a fair bit of
effort by our overstreched RAA representatives to get this done, and
we don’t want to complicate the task.
I agree… first things first.
As for interface issues, I think it would be good
to make the most common keywords into checkboxes
(for purposes of uploading and/or searching). Then
there could be an “other” textfield.