Re: [eclipse.org-eclipsecon-program-committee] What do those tags mean?

[Oisin Hurley <oisin.hurley@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think I am not the only one that is doing a bit of
head-scratching as we go through these tag selections,
so it must be extra-difficult for the submitters. We do need
to set this up for the next time around: I think that the tagging
style approach is the best one, but our tagsonomy needs
some work.

> o Java EE
>
>       I take this to mean "Enterprise Java" in general, not literally the
> Java EE spec's. So I think things like "Spring", or the new OSGi Enterprise
> items are good here. In other words, I think OSGi Enterprise better in Java
> EE than in "runtime" ... though I'll admit, I'm not clear on what would go
> in "runtime", other than equinox :)  If _real_ specific to OSGi, they'd go
> in OSGi DevCon ... but several are more oriented towards "OSGi Enterprise in
> Eclipse".

Right now I am looking at this as 'Java Enterprise Edition' rather
than a more general Enterprise Java as you write, David. However,
I think that for future tagging, an 'Enterprise Java' tag would be more
useful.

>  o Tools
>
>       I think there are some things that actually do belong tagged with
> "Tools". :) Mostly "tools for developers to use in IDE as they develop
> code".  Not so much "tools to create web applications" or "tools frameworks
> to use in your applications" or similar.  This could include specific tools
> and general ones (like "editors in Eclipse").

+1 - should this be then 'Developer Tools', perhaps, or 'Coding Tools'?

> o Languages
>
>      I think here belong talks of some one specific programming language
> (Groovy, JavaScript, XSL, etc.).

+1

>      Question one: I think "Domain Specific Language" topics should go in
> Modeling. Sound ok? In some cases, there's talks under "languages" not
> marked with "modeling" so didn't want to dump these on Modeling folks if you
> disagree.  (I could see if there was already a specific Domain Specific
> Language that was being discussed .. maybe "how to use the 'Automotive Parts
> Language in Eclipse' ... I could see that in "Languages" ... but if it is
> about "how to create a DSL" or similar, seems more model related.

Interesting one. I think that if the talk is "Automotive Parts Language -
using Xtext to create a DSL for the Automotive Industry", then it is a
modeling talk, as it focusses on a modeling technology and it's application.
If the talk is "Harmonizing Parts Descriptions with the Automotive Parts
Language", then I think it should be a languages thing (or maybe even
a Developer Tools?)

> o Java
>
>     I didn't look at the Java list, but saw a lot of Java tags. I think
> 'Java' tag should be for talks very specific to the Java Language ...
> debugging Java, syntax checking. compiling, editing ... but not about
> "using" the Java Language for something (as seemed to be the implication of
> most tags I saw).

+1

> o Web Services
>
>     A tough one, for me, to define. There might be some specific to just
> "web services", but often seems webservices is just a (small) sub-type of
> Java EE or SOA?

We are still seeing the legacy of per-project tracks here, I guess (or
per-sub-project maybe). I know that the SOA and Web Services can
be associated with Enterprise, but Web Services are also things like
twitter and facebook, for example, that are not enterprise related and
are effectively represented as standalone APIs. Perhaps we are
better to drop the Web Services tag entirely, to reduce confusion?

> Question two: should we favor the "larger" tag category, over "smaller"
> ones? (Where larger means "encompassing a broader range" of talks. For
> example, tutorial #1233 [1] seems best in _only_ Java EE category, rather
> than also in 'webservices' and 'xml tools'. Maybe these have to be case by
> case? Ok for this case? Or in general should we strive to leave all
> applicable tags?

Case by case is the way we need to do it. I've been trying to leave
two tags per talk, but there are some instances where I haven't been
sure - and some instances where the discussion may not be worth
it.

> Thanks for comments, if any .... otherwise, welcome back from holidays and
> happy new year!

Same to you!

 --oh