search

isaqb-org / glossary

An extensive glossary of software architecture (and development) terminology. Explains the terms used and referenced in the iSAQB foundation and advanced level curricula.
https://leanpub.com/isaqbglossary
35 stars 16 forks source link

get rid of categories - as they don't provide additional value #149

Closed gernotstarke closed 1 year ago

gernotstarke commented 1 year ago

We did never really use categories, so we should eliminate them altogether.

ichsteffen commented 1 year ago

Are you really sure?

gernotstarke commented 1 year ago

yes, I'm really sure.

Originally we wanted to generate category-specific tables - but actually nobody ever asked for such a feature, and nobody wanted to implement it. So what is the information good for? Just takes up space. Haven't been maintained properly (Kategorie vs Category, not used uniformely).

Not all terms had categories. Some had many.

There's already a PR for it. More than 150 lines deleted :-)

WolfgangFahl commented 1 year ago

Currently the categories are the only way that the glossary can be filtered. E.g the security and quality attribute entries are currently iMHO a bit "bloated" if we have glossary entries per curriculum things get more interesting. IMHO we definetly need a tag or category approach (but not necessarily both).

Since I am converting the glossary to Semantic Mediawiki in my environment Categories are a natural thing.

gernotstarke commented 1 year ago

in principle, I'm with you.

in case of our glossary and its (former) categories: They were a huge mess - and any filtering would imho have provided partial or misleading information.

Second point: What is the usecase for filtering the glossary? Who benefits from such a filter? Imho none and nobody. Let's invest more energy in providing good explanations and definitions, and less energy in formal stuff.

WolfgangFahl commented 1 year ago

Please rethink this and wait until more people have given their comment. My partner companies would probably love to have a say. I'll get back to this after talking to e.g. Bert-Jan.

gernotstarke commented 1 year ago

In case you want to analyze, filter or otherwise modify, I suggest you fork this repo.

I will not accept arbitrary comments or opinions (may these origin in your partner companies or elsewhere). Based upon the weight of contributions (https://github.com/isaqb-org/glossary/graphs/contributors) I think I somewhat deserved the right to decide certain aspects - and at least a few other contributors favored my decision.

mikesperber commented 1 year ago

What @WolfgangFahl wants is good and desirable, but what he have/had in the glossary just isn't that. Only a few entries have it, there's no taxonomy design etc. Doing all of that would be a worthwhile issue.