🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2013@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> rhys@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>In <EACHUS.91Jun18164709@largo.mitre.org> eachus@largo.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>However, if I walk into a computer store and walk up to the shelf marked
>"Spreadsheets" I'll also find programs that double up as wordprocessors,
>databases, desktop publishers, comms programs, ... in addition to being
>a spreadsheet.

One way around this is to have a "Main Category" and "Sub-Category"
headings for the software.  That way, the primary function of the
software would be listed, and any other features could be placed 
under sub-categories.  And Emacs could still be the kitchen sink. :-)

>So if the "Compy Decimal" system (or whatever) was used, we'd find such
>programs under lots of different numbers and sooner or later some librarian
>is going to forget to enter a program under all necessary headings, or
>a programmer is not going to tell the librarian all the headings and
>we are back to square one.  Similarly, using identifiers for programs like
>"spreadsheet,database,wordprocessor,unix,xwindows:123.8" aren't going
>to be much better, and we'll get back to the keyword search problem
>eventually.

I think that a perfect system is unrealistic.  The idea is to make it
better than it is.  If a program is not entered under all of it's
relevant headings, then so be it.  So long as the main purpose of the
program is found, I'd be lots happier.

>Some central control would be needed (as with any library system) and that
>would be a good idea (and I agree with this), but with "creeping featurism"
>being the favourite passtime of upgrades these days, it's only going to
>get worse.  When a book is published, further editions don't stray much
>from the original topic - but program users are always screaming for more
>features over and above what a program was initially intended for, meaning
>extra identifiers for every new version of a program.  Distributed database
>technology is not the answer, just the means.  Better information is the
>answer.

Why not have the authors of the program provide the categories that a
system or program should be entered under?  They know the software best,
and probably wouldn't forget to enter it under too many headings.  The
problem with having a central librarian concept is that you require those
people to be authorities on a vast amount of information.  Not only what
has gone before, but every new technology that comes out.  That's a 
terrific burden.

>Maybe it's time we retrained programmers to write programs to perform
>a single task, not control the world!  :-)

Reality, my friend, reality!  :-)  And let's train managers and
marketroids to not ask for just "one more thing" while we're at it.

Chris
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Chris Anderson, Unify Corp.                caa@unify.com  |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
|     Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards ... for you    |