Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!csus.edu!csusac!unify!caa From: caa@Unify.Com (Chris A. Anderson) Newsgroups: comp.archives.admin Subject: Re: building an interstate (data) highway with no roadmaps Message-ID: <89gs5jr@Unify.Com> Date: 21 Jun 91 15:47:00 GMT References: > <2013@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> Organization: unify Lines: 56 In article <2013@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> rhys@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >In 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 |