[Discuss] OSHWA creates one database to rule them all ...

[Matt Maier]

That would go under metadescriptors > required tools (call it whatever you
want). It's a list of metadata, not a list of all information sufficient to
utilize or replicate the project. The use case is to make discovery easier
when everyone has different projects in different places. Note the link to
the actual URL of the main project...outside of this small file.

Dependencies, as the term is used in software, doesn't even make sense for
most hardware projects. It was judged too specific to be included in
metadata 0.1. From a "customer story" point of view, if someone is
interested in dependencies then they've already found the project, so the
discovery metadata did its job by getting them looking at the project and
curious about its details.


On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Using a stack of Post-It notes, the taxonomy group delineated essential
>> metatags and metadescriptors to be incorporated into  documentation and
>> organized them on the wall:
>>
>
> That's awful, there's not even a concept of dependencies? Nobody on the
> entire committee even thought about it? That sounds really bizarre.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140906/2d5adb0f/attachment.html>