| 1 |
On Sunday, 29 January 2006 09:29 pm, Markus Dittrich wrote: |
| 2 |
> I would tend to say yes, since molecular graphics programs can vizualize |
| 3 |
> everything from small molecules to large biomolecular systems. |
| 4 |
> Hence, I would have a hard time deciding if, e.g. VMD should |
| 5 |
> be sci-biology or sci-chemistry, whereas sci-visualization seems |
| 6 |
> natural. I would really like to hear opinions before I commit |
| 7 |
> VMD to portage. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Personally, I would rather keep the specialised visualisation applications in |
| 10 |
their respective categories and use sci-visualisation for general-purpose |
| 11 |
tools. Doing otherwise would create confusion, I think. For instance, should |
| 12 |
TreeViewX be moved to sci-visualisation? After all, it is a visualisation |
| 13 |
program for phylogenies produced by other tools, such as PHYLIP. However, |
| 14 |
users are more likely to search for that tool in sci-biology. Does a genome |
| 15 |
browser belong in sci-visualisation? What about packages such as EMBOSS, that |
| 16 |
propose a few visualisation programs, along with analysis tools? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think it is better to classify packages according to their field of |
| 19 |
application, and keep visualisation packages that are not tied to a |
| 20 |
particular field in sci-visualisation (ie. statu quo). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Regards, |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Olivier Fisette (ribosome) |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 27 |
Scientific applications, Developer relations |
Archives