<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> 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? 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". 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: <blockquote cite="mid:20090610154707.GE10334@ops-13.xades.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:34:29PM +0200, Sean DALY wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I think that's a great idea - will be very helpful in identifying the "classics". </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> 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: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy">http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Taxonomy</a> 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. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">thanks Sean </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Martin </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>