[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] ASLO Suggestion

[Walter Bender]

FWIW, the 100 or so GCompris activities have an internal organization as well:

maths
physics
puzzles
reading
amusements
strategy games
discovery
learn about the computer

-walter

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Gary C Martin<gary at garycmartin.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
>



-- 
Walter Bender
Sugar Labs
http://www.sugarlabs.org