[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] ASLO Suggestion

[Gary C Martin]

Hi James,

On 10 Jun 2009, at 17:48, James Simmons wrote:

> Martin,
>
> First and foremost ASLO has to make sense to grade school kids and  
> their teachers.  That's why I didn't care for GCompris as a  
> category.  Now since we can give an Activity up to three Categories  
> it might make sense to have one for the stuff that comes pre- 
> installed.  Other than that, does any kid or teacher care who  
> maintains an Activity?

As I said once before, I'm really not a fan of ontologies, it's all  
shades of grey for me, but I guess we should try and get agreement on  
some set. Can't be much worse than we have already! :-)

Here's the thread from back in March when we last tried to move on this:

	http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-March/004715.html

> For ASLO we might want teachers to suggest categories based on  
> subjects taught.  For instance, instead of "Documents" we might have  
> "Reading" and "Writing" or "Reading and Writing".  Instead of "Media  
> Creation" and "Media Playing" we could have "Art" and "Music".

Not too much input from existing teachers unfortunately back then, but  
the list I was keeping track of ended up at something like the below:

Art
Communication
Games
Geography
Literacy
Maths
Music
Programming
Science
Utilities

How does this seem to folks, anything missing or could be better  
named? Was trying to keep the list reasonably short and non-technical.

Regards,
--Gary

> Among ourselves we can make any taxonomy we like, but for the public  
> face of Sugar Activities we have to remember the target audience.
>
> Any discussion of taxonomy reminds me of grocery shopping on  
> Sundays.  Whoever does the taxonomies for Jewel and Dominick's seems  
> to have no purpose in mind other than keeping me in the damned store  
> as long as possible.  On the other hand Costco arranges stuff in  
> reasonable categories.
>
> James Simmons
>
>
> Martin Dengler wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:34:29PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote:
>>
>>> I think that's a great idea - will be very helpful in identifying  
>>> the
>>> "classics".
>>>
>>
>> It'd be great if the classifications found happened to, or could be
>> easily made to, be sensibly related to the classifications used for
>> quite some time now:
>>
>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy
>>
>> Somthing like:
>>
>> "SL-maintained" / "classics" / "core" <--> Fructose
>> "community-maintained" / "others" <--> Honey
>> "pre-installed [on SoaS]" <--> Starch/Cellulose
>>
>> I'm not saying the existing Taxonomy is the sexiest or
>> most-comprehensible-to-the-outsider, but it's well-aligned with the
>> development/deployment processes and if we promote a completely
>> orthogonal categorization it may cause a troublesome impedence
>> mismatch.
>>
>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> Sean
>>>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep