From: Daniel Carrera <dcarrera@...>
Date: 2003-01-27T08:55:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on?

On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:25:22AM +0900, Tom Sawyer wrote:

> i beleive it would be an improvement to allow for a Graph. that is to say, an 
> RAA entry can belong to multiple categories.

A complex graph is harder to browse than a tree.

As for searching, I don't see how a search would work any better or worse 
on a graph, a tree or a flat list.

I would suggest having essentially a tree.  We can permit some projects to 
be in more than one category, but be conservative about it.

> since it seems searching is the most common means of finding a package, and 
> will increasingly become so as the RAA increases in size, then perhaps the 
> search functionailty should be placed at the top of the page.

I don't know how common searching is.  When I used CPAN I browsed mostly.  
Both features are important.

Now, having a tree will not compromise a search, but having a (complex) 
graph will compromise browsing.  I vote that we avoid too-complex a 
graph.

I agree that the search option should be at the top.  It takes almost no 
room and it's very useful.

> also, note, that mutiple categorization will facilitate seach queries better.

I would agree only if we have a simple graph (almost a tree).  Having too 
many things in too many categories will cause the search to produce a 
large number of unwated results.  As much as I like Google, this is one 
thing I find anoying about it.

Take the extreme case, just for illustration, where everything is is under 
every single category.  If you search for any given category, your results 
will contain everything, making the search useless.

I vote that we maintain the graph simple.

-- 
Daniel Carrera
Graduate Teaching Assistant.  Math Dept.
University of Maryland.  (301) 405-5137