mackeown@CompSci.Bristol.AC.UK (W. Mackeown) (10/12/89)
Attention all + NET.CZARS, not just Sci.Aquaria fans. David O'Brien wrote: >Here's my support for SCI.AQUARIA, it is the most correct name in my >opinion and Richards arguments against REC and ALT groups have >convinced me the change is needed. [...] There may be good arguments against placement in the REC or ALT hierarchies. But there are also good arguments against placement in the SCI hierarchy as "sci.aquaria". What do you think about the idea of a newsgroup sci.magnetism ? Or sci.zeolites (for zeolite catalysts) ? Or sci.rsa (for RSA public-key cipher) ? Or sci.non-monotonic (for non-monotonic logics) ? Or sci.poisson (No, not an alias for aquaria(!)- for Poisson distributions)? Or sci.nutrition ? Or etc etc. ad infinitum.... See what I'm getting at ? "sci.aquaria" fits this pattern. Each of these possible new SCI domains covers a tiny SPECIALITY. Not a major new branch of scientific knowledge. It's like the 1st level of the SCI tree is growing w i l d l y WIDER: O | O-O-O-0-O-O-O-O-O-O-O ... ... etc ... -O | | | | | | | | | | | ... ... etc ... | But wouldn't it be more logical, more structured, in short better, for it to be growing DEEPER in the right places ? For example: sci.physics.magnetism sci.chem.catalysts.zeolites sci.crypt.public-key.rsa sci.logic.non-monotonic sci.math.stat.poisson sci.med.nutrition + of course sci.bio.aquatic ] Why do I propose 2 separate groups and but also rec.aquariums ] (screech) why REC instead of SCI ?! (NB. rec.aquariums would not be for pet-related talk, that's for rec.pests) A) The essential ingredient of all hobby aquariums is the MAINTENANCE of life in a simulated water-based environment, which may or may not match any natural environment closely. Hobby aquarists may or may not view those lifeforms as pets. Hence, "rec.pets.aquariums" may not be appropriate. The point is that the maintenance of those lifeforms is both the MEANS and the END. This does not prevent and it probably encourages highly technical discussions about how to improve the maintenance, with ideas borrowed freely from biological science, but it remains a hobby. Hence,"rec.aquariums" Q.E.D. B) Marine or freshwater biologists study LIFE ITSELF and its interactions with the environment and other lifeforms, either in a REAL water-based environment, or in as CLOSE an approximation as is technologically possible. They attempt to produce THEORIES to EXPLAIN their observations. They don't just catalog their findings. The aquarium is merely a tool to facilitate the studies. Hence, "sci.bio.aquatic" and also "sci.bio.aquatic.marine" and "sci.bio.aquatic.freshwater", Q.E.D. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attention all idealists: Q) So you think the names are rather long ? Far too long ? Ugly, offputting ? A) Yes, they're long. But just look in an Encyclopaedia -- that's an example of a very well-planned index structure with plenty of DEPTH. There's a huge amount of information in an Encyclopaedia but it's still remarkably quick and easy to get access to things via the index. How much less useful would it be if the index were only ONE- or TWO- levels deep ? A LOT less. MAXIM: A good index reduces search time and promotes systematic development. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- This argument also applies to the other hierarchies. It is also retrospective. Many EXISTING groups seem to be misnamed. If there is ever a great renaming, prime candidates must include: comp.unix.* => comp.os.unix.* comp.bugs.2bsd => comp.os.unix.2bsd.bugs comp.bugs.4bsd => comp.os.unix.4bsd.bugs comp.bugs.4bsd.ucb-fixes => comp.os.unix.4bsd.bugs.ucb-fixes comp.bugs.sys5 => comp.os.unix.sys5.bugs comp.emacs => comp.editors.emacs comp.laser-printers => comp.periphs.laser-printers comp.protocols.* => comp.communications.protocols.* comp.risks => comp.security.risks comp.virus => comp.security.risks.virus news.sysadmin => news.admin.sysadmin sci.crypt => sci.math.crypt sci.logic => sci.math.logic etc. etc. (your suggestions here...) Just ask yourself, what is a subset of what. If you get >=2 identical subsets at some point along different branches, break the "loop(s)" by having duplicate nodes. For example, more than one newsgroup ends with ".d" -- this duplication is ok, even though the cryptic ".d" is an ambiguous way to indicate a discussion group. Q.E.D. MAXIM: Put related subjects under common headings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other interesting issues not detailed above include : 1) Groups in the wrong hierarchy or just badly named: eg. sci.skeptic => talk.skeptic comp.society.women => soc.women.computing 2) Missing hierarchies, eg. "eng.*" for engineering would map sci.nanotech => eng.design.nanotech. 3) Ambiguous names: eg. alt.emusic (No, NOT electronic music) => alt.music.exotic ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** CALL FOR YOUR OPINIONS *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ An OPINION POLL on the subject of RENAMING THE NEWSGROUPS is running from now until Friday 27 October (inclusive). If you have an opinion about renaming newsgroups, this is your chance to influence the outcome of this poll. This poll will not by itself determine how/whether a renaming takes place, but the results will probably influence future events/discussions. So don't leave it to someone else. Reply now. POLL #1) Would everyone with an opinion on the above, (ie. about whether it is time for another renaming in SOME form) please reply by e-mail with subject header line "Subject: poll1" to : mackeown@compsci.bristol.ac.uk with a clear, preferably very brief (<5 lines) indication in the message of your opinion. (New-users, press the 'r' key at the end of this article, if using the readnews program, "rn") POLL #2) To the same address, but in a separate e-mail message with subject line "Subject: poll2", list your suggestions for badly named groups in this form ONLY: old name of newsgroup => new name of newsgroup (your choice) old name of newsgroup => NULL (if you think it should not exist) I will post the results in 2 weeks time. I will also mail the results to the following in case they miss the posting. Gene Spafford (spaf@uther.cs.purdue.edu) Chuq von Rospach (chuq@apple.com) Greg Woods (woods@handies.ucar.edu) Please ignore my followup to this posting, which repeats this poll-call for the benefit/detriment of users who never read long postings like this :-) -- William Mackeown (mackeown@compsci.bristol.ac.uk) "Opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making." -- J.Milton, 1665