Open Stack

Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
> Specifically after the impression I got from the last meeting was that
> the foundation envisioned  these to be one and the same and not
> differentiate between ops-tags and tags.

Yes, we originally hoped the ops workgroup would be OK with reusing the
simple tag framework that the TC created, and that we could use the same
simple code to represent them all.

Now, I understand that the simple tag framework does not let you convey
the type of information you want to communicate, which is why you need a
slightly more complex data model. That's OK, but that means we'll have
two types of information. At the Foundation staff layer we can still use
the same website to represent both, but we'll need slightly different
code to display more complex data.

It will end up being represented in parallel. Tags will be
represented... well... as tags. From the early discussions I had with
Tom, ops-data will likely be represented as tables or more ad-hoc
visualizations. Which is why I insist on finding another name to
describe ops-data -- it won't be represented as a tag (or a label) on
the website. So it will be confusing to our users if that data is called
"tags" but not represented as the other tags. Which is why I insist on
finding a better name to describe it.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)