root@cca.ucsf.edu (Computer Center) (01/10/89)
>In article <15054@genrad.UUCP>, jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) writes: >> In article <76@sopwith.UUCP> snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >> It appears that the number and size of "datasets" posted to the net is >> growing. Time to consider a group such as comp.datasets to hold them. ... >I think that a group for data postings is a good idea. I'd like to see more >data be posted: Astronomical data, medical, graphics, geographical maps, >census, etc... The idea of a comp.data group has been kicked around informally for a long time. I'm glad to see a little momentum here. Experience with other groups, e.g. comp.binaries.ibm.pc, seems to support the model of a moderated group for the actual data postings along with an unmoderated associated discussion group to handle inquiries, comments, etc. It seems worthwhile to subdivide the actual data group into subgroups to allow reasonable selectivity. For example: comp.data -- the parent group comp.data.d -- discussion relevant to comp.data subgroups comp.data.dict -- dictionaries, word lists, etc. comp.data.graphics -- sets of graphical image data comp.data.sci -- physical scicnces data (e.g. the SAO data) comp.data.soc -- social sciences data comp.data.bugs -- in case comp.data.d can't handle bug reports or, perhaps, the official bug fixes which may result from submissions by the authors or the concensus from comp.data.d discussions. comp.data.misc -- anything worthwhile that doesn't fit elsewhere where all would be moderated except comp.data.d. Further subdivision might be desirable later, e.g. geo and astron subgroups of comp.data.sci and so forth. There is substantial material which has been previously posted to the net in other groups which might be collected by the (hoped for) archive sites to seed the whole system without needing to repost the data. Thos Sumner (thos@cca.ucsf.edu) BITNET: thos@ucsfcca (The I.G.) (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos) OS|2 -- an Operating System for puppets. #include <disclaimer.std>
wisner@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Bill Wisner) (01/16/89)
>It seems worthwhile to subdivide the actual data group into subgroups >to allow reasonable selectivity. For example: > > comp.data -- the parent group > comp.data.d -- discussion relevant to comp.data subgroups > comp.data.dict -- dictionaries, word lists, etc. [...] You're kidding, right? How many dictionaries have YOU seen posted to USENET? It may not be necessary to have a single comp.data newsgroup. It certainly is not necessary to have several score of comp.data subgroups. Kill this idea now.