[Haskell-cafe] Subcategories on Hackage
wren ng thornton
wren at freegeek.org
Sun Jun 5 04:49:54 CEST 2011
On 6/4/11 9:41 AM, Tillmann Vogt wrote:
> Am 04.06.2011 15:00, schrieb Sebastian Fischer:
> I think I have read that article a long time ago. I just looked at it
> again. Very lengthy but true.
> In the middle there is a section when ontologies work well and ... it
> all applies to Hackage.
I'm not so sure of that.
> When Does Ontological Classification Work Well?
> Domain to be Organized
> Small corpus 3k libraries is nothing compared to the whole web
> (referring to the yahoo example), or every book on earth
Sure, it's small by library standards; but then again, libraries have
curators. Libraries don't have to deal with everyone just filling out
their own metadata when donating a book to the library. In comparison to
others corpora of its kind, Hackage is of middling size and still
growing. The relevant corpora here are things like CPAN, CTAN, CRAN and
the like; not the whole internet, nor even a university library.
> Formal categories already exist, just need some improvement
The categories aren't formal. Formal categorization means things like
the names of biological species or the various constructs of abstract
algebra, things which have a fixed and definite definition. Even the
ontology of biology suffered a major upset over the last two decades as
genetic sequencing demonstrated that the previous organization of
species was woefully wrong.
When is something a 2D graphics library vs a 3D library? What about all
the shades in between, all the various options like depth parallax,
pseudo-3D, fixed perspective, sprites on 3D backgrounds,... before you
enter true 3D rendering? Something like the raster category may be a bit
more formal, but even with my feeble knowledge of graphics I know that
graphics as a whole is a mish mash of differing things and not a
formally specified domain.
> Stable entities Haskell is a mathematical language, and if there is
> one thing that will never change then it is math
Haskell is quite mathematical, but mathematics have shifted and changed
dramatically over the years. Math changes all the time.
Programming libraries and projects even moreso. Goals and directions
change all the time. What began as a project in category A could easily
shift to become focused on category B.
> Restricted entities access only after personal email
What Clay means here is things like a library that only deals in bound
volume books, as opposed to dealing also in other literary media
(papyrus, velum,...) or in non-literary media (music, video,...).
This does describe Hackage pretty well though. It's only for software,
and only for software written in (or for) Haskell. While that's still a
very broad domain, at least all the entities in it are of the same kind.
> Clear edges ?
> Expert catalogers Maybe the best educated programmers in the world
Even if we are the best educated, I doubt there are very many Haskellers
with expert-level experience in cataloging. How many of us work as
librarians, ontologists, or other professions in charge of organizing
and curating data? There are a few, I'm sure. Some work in databases,
and some do annotation work (e.g., the NLPers), but the average
Haskeller is not an expert cataloger. And I'm sure the experts are too
busy to have all of Hackage foisted upon them.
> Authoritative source of judgment Maybe
Hackage has no Benevolent Dictator For Life (that I'm aware of).
More information about the Haskell-Cafe