[R-wiki] [Fwd: The results of your email commands]

[Philippe Grosjean]

Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
> Philippe Grosjean wrote:
> 
>> Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I think that's enough, just think that Data Manipulation should be 
>>> promoted to a section.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> One has to decide and keep consistent: the current top level (level 1) 
>> division of sections is between short docs (going to 'snippets' 
>> section) and long docs (going to 'tutorials' section). Then, we have:
>> 1) in 'snippets': 'data-manip' among others.
>> 2) in 'tutorial': no equivalent because longer document are likely to 
>> discuss various things... not just data manipulation. If, by chance, 
>> there is a longer document that discusses *only* data manipulation, it 
>> is possible to add a 'data-manip' subsection in 'tutorial' too.
>>
>> If we make 'data-manip' a top level section, we break the whole logic, 
>> and there is no reasons we shoudn't promote 'stats', or 'graphics' for 
>> instance as top-level sections... and at the end, we rework everything 
>> and end up with a totally different structure.
>>
>> Just think at the structure on harddisk in a more practical way. I 
>> like to separate short and long documents, because they are managed 
>> very differently. Long documents have a primary author that is more 
>> susceptible to update his own work, to append to it, etc... Many sort 
>> documents will be one shot (typically, someone converts an interesting 
>> R-Help thread, for instance). It is really more a collaboration of 
>> many people, it is much more chaotic. Consequently, it requires a 
>> larger number of subsections to keep a little bit of order. I think, 
>> for these reasons, that we have now a pretty good structure to help 
>> manage the Wiki.
>>
>> Now, it is possible to write tables of content that are more 
>> task-specific, that is, promote 'data', 'stats', 'graphics' as top 
>> level, and list all documents (both from 'tutorials' and 'snippets') 
>> under these sections. One could also think about such table of 
>> contents  as area-specific (biology, finance, etc...). That is what is 
>> experimented here: 
>> http://www.sciviews.org/_rgui/wiki/doku.php?id=tutorials:tutorials
>>
>> Does this answers to your request (without breaking the current 
>> structure)?
> 
> 
> Philippe, you have a better understanding of this than I do, so I'm 
> comfortable with your approach.  I don't recommend area-specific main 
> classifications as their is much overlap between areas in the stat and 
> graphical methods used (and especially in data manipulation).
> 
> Frank

Do you mean it is not a good idea to separate 'data' from 'stats' from 
'graphics'? Gosh! It is the clearest separation we could do in my mind 
(even if there are overlaps). What do you porpose? Please, keep in mind 
that it is just a convenient way to have a little bit of order in the 
files *on the server's disk* (that is, you have to decide to place a 
file in one category on the disk, but you can refer to it from different 
places in the table of contents).

One example: a page deals with residuals analysis of regressions. So, is 
it 'stats-models' or 'graphics-base', given that there is a wide 
discussion on the graphs also? Well, it doesn't matter! Just choose one 
(let's say 'stats-models'), and refer to the page from both 
'stats-models' and 'graphics-base' in the table of contents.
Best,

Philippe