From owner-cvs-ports  Fri Apr 11 10:49:01 1997
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA05883
          for cvs-ports-outgoing; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (fallout.campusview.indiana.edu [149.159.1.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA05862;
          Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (jfieber@localhost)
	by fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA19547;
	Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:48:45 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:48:45 -0500 (EST)
From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu>
Reply-To: 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
In-Reply-To: <199704111709.KAA09493@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970411121142.16978I-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

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