MetaBase classification

From MetaBase

Jump to: navigation, search

(KST)= Ideas relating to classification = The following text comes from the list of aims

The MetaBase should be 'classifiable'. That is to say that it should not contain just one fixed database classification scheme, but many. Potentially any user could create his or her own classification of databases according to any criteria, and those classifications should be available to everyone.

Contents

[edit] Random idea for classification

  1. We define a list of 'keywords' such as; database, RNA, protein, structure, etc., etc. The keywords can be stored on a special page so that people can add them as necessary.
  2. We then scan all the content, and 'markup' the first occurence of each keyword in every page. The markup will look like this, for example; [[Keyword:Protein|protein]]
  3. To each keyword page, we add a 'what links here' dynamic page list. Thus, each 'keyword page' will link to each resource tagged with the keyword.
  4. We categorize keywords using an ontology of terms.

... Hrm... seems only half a solution...

Comments?
  1. Why bother with all this messing about? Why not define a set of keywords and then mark them up like [[Category:Protein|protein]] or even [[Category:Keyword:Protein|protein]] etc., etc. That would make a lot of new categories, but would have the same effect much more trivially.
  2. "lot of new categories, " I do not think so, well depends, are we stick to the NAR structure ?? If not then we could just create our own category structure [[Category:Database|Protein]] [[Category:Protein|human]] But the bigger the database is the higher the number of categories will be. --Pingou 23:01, 10 August 2007 (KST)
  3. This is just to explain what I did tonigh: There are 2 main categories Database and Dataserver, we need to separate them. Below there are another level between data available and organism (for the database) (not present yet). Then arrives the different categories Proteins DNA ARN... I believe we first need to stay general and go deeper and deeper (ie Database => DNA => SNPs). I did not touch the NAR webpage but I believe that their categorize are really detailled, too much for a first classification ?? I also change the layout of the pages so that they all look the same. I did this only on the User contributed resource pages (sorry ;-) ). --Pingou 08:13, 11 August 2007 (KST)


[edit] Random idea for classification

  1. Each user makes a list of their favourite databases ...
Comments?
  1. and then ?? Do we make a list of the most appreciated database ? I believe this two list are not contradictory... And even not contradictory with the first page is shown the most visited database. --Pingou 22:48, 3 October 2007 (KST)

[edit] Random idea for classification

  1. Get some ideas here... http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Category_extensions
Comments?

[edit] Random idea for classification

Comments?
Retrieved from "http://Biodatabase.org/index.php/MetaBase_classification"
Personal tools