Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 28 of 28
While cleaning up tags, I noticed that we could make better use of some computer science arXiv categories to supplement the math arXiv tags that we already use.
The most relevant categories appear to be the following:
The categories cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.CE, cs.PL could be relevant to mathematics, but we don't seem to have a significant number of MO questions in these categories.
Some of these cs categories are contained in existing math categories:
Some already have cs tags:
Finally, some existing tags match cs categories but aren't labeled as such:
The tag [algorithms] partly matches cs.DS but also cs.CC and some other things. The tags [game-theory] or [combinatorial-game-theory] also partly match cs.GT but most game theory questions on MO are not directly related to CS per se.
I think it would be a good idea to acknowledge the CS categories and create the four additional tags [cs.cr.cryptography], [cs.fl.languages-automata], [cs.ms.math-software], [cs.sc.symbolic-computing] (renaming the existing tags mentioned above). Some of these may be contentious, so please voice your concerns here or send an email to email@example.com. (The cs tag names are also debatable --- I did my best given the character limit imposed by the software.)
The new tags [cs.cr.cryptography], [cs.ms.math-software], [cs.sc.symbolic-computing] have been created. We're waiting a bit for comments on cs.FL since merging two tags is irreversible.
Is it possible to drop the "cs." part from these tags? It would look nicer and more consistent with the other tags.
We don't have [math.AT.algebraic-topology], for instance...
The math tags are intended to match the arxiv category descriptions here (see the bottom of the ask page). The cs prefix is a hint to look at the arxiv category descriptions here instead.
The old tags [cryptography], [mathematical-software], [symbolic-computation] no longer exist, they have been renamed [cs.cr.cryptography], [cs.ms.math-software], [cs.sc.symbolic-computing]. This is just a trial and this is completely reversible. (The [formal-languages] and [automata-theory] tags have not been touched since that would be irreversible.)
The reasons you point out are exactly why I posted this. As I mentioned above, very few game theory questions have a cs angle, so it would be inappropriate to rename [game-theory] to [cs.gt.game-theory]. A similar argument applies to logic, in fact the descriptions of math.LO and cs.LO are so different that it wouldn't be inappropriate at all for [lo.logic] and [cs.lo.logic] to coexist. For cryptography, mathematical software, symbolic computation, the descriptions of the cs categories seem to agree with how the community uses these tags. For formal languages and automata, the main issue is that these are conceptually very different though one hardly ever goes without the other.
I find your objection to the cs prefix interesting. I'm glad you mentioned it. In my mind, all MO tags have an implicit math prefix because all MO questions are primarily about mathematics. (Questions that are primarily about cs should be redirected to cstheory.stackexchange.com or cs.stackexchange.com.) To me, the cs prefix only indicates that the cs angle is relevant. If most users think that the cs prefix indicates that the topic is primarily cs, then I see that as a good reason to eliminate all cs prefixes!
That's a good point, Joel. We'll wait a few days for people to voice their opinions...
If we decide to eliminate cs arxiv prefixes, then we will go forward with the following tag renamings:
I agree with what JDH wrote. For me the "cs." prefix creates the feeling that these topics are kind of different from the rest of the topics, that they are inferior or not suitable for MO.
I also personally prefer if the mid-fixes are included in the tags, e.g. "cc.complexity-theory" in place of "complexity-theory" to keep their distinction from other tags. These are areas like other areas in mathematics, I don't see a reason to differentiate between these and other area tags, they should be treated the same way other area tags are treated IMHO.
I second what Kaveh says in the second paragraph.
That seems problematic since math.CC is not an arXiv category. Maybe (as the cs prefix did for Joel) the two-letter prefixes mean something different to you than they do to me?
I don't understand what role the two-letter prefixes play in any of the tags. For example, why not change "nt.number-theory" to "number-theory"? The "NT" in the arXiv is just a space-saving abbreviation for "number theory" anyway, and it seems silly to use the abbreviation at all if you're always going to append the full name. Right now, the only role the prefixes seem to play is as a mildly obscure way of emphasizing that these are the same categories as on the arXiv. However, with the exception of ho.history-overview (where the usage of the category on the arXiv is broader than one might expect from the name), I don't think see any real content here. It's not like someone's going to say "Oh, I get it, you mean number theory as in the arXiv!"
Good point, Henry. Is it the case that arxiv tags have served their purpose and are no longer needed on MO?
For the curious, the historical origin of arxiv tags is documented in this thread from 2009: http://meta.mathoverflow.net/discussion/32/tagging-policy-and-philosophy/
Rereading the 2009 thread linked above, the basic idea was to have some reference list of "major tags" for classification purposes. (The term "major" here is used in opposition to "specialized" but not as broad as [analysis], [algebra], [geometry], or even [math] which do very little for classification purposes.) An ideal classification system would be such that every MO question would fit into one or more of these major categories, excluding off-topic questions. The consensus was that the math arxiv tags would serve that purpose well and they did for quite some time. It does appear that MO has outgrown this classification system.
This brings us to some basic questions:
Note that, as a result of the 2009 discussion, a list of arXiv tags was added at the end of the ask form, and the front page has this notice: "Want to help? Consider retagging questions with no arXiv tag."
(I edited the title since this the topic is shifting to arXiv tags in general.)
Regarding 1, I think there is a need to have a small number of major tags. The number of questions posted on MO has become so huge that these subject classification tags seem essential to have a simple and easy way of following questions in topics we are interested in.
Regarding 3, an easy way could have been using a "." and dropping the the preceding two letters, but unfortunately the software doesn't allow tags starting with it AFAIR.
Btw, you might be interested in the following simple user-script I wrote sometime ago for making these tags more distinguishable from the rest: Bold and colorful area tags
One of the problem that is nicely addressed with the arXiv tags is that it solves the problem of the tags being not otherwise defined (which can be problematic coupled with the character-number limit in the tag names; compare [ca.analysis-odes] to [pseudodifferential-oper]--incidentally this also gives a partial counterexample to Henry Cohn's assertion that we almost append the full name).
Another particular strength of the arXiv tags is that the list is remarkably short. Imagine requiring using something like the MSC2010 for the tags! So for question 1, I agree with Kaveh that there needs to be a small number of major tags.
Tomorrow I will rename the last two CS tags:
Regarding arxiv tags in general, there are varying opinions. I think there are some important issues with arxiv tags but it might be better to keep the status quo until we migrate to SE 2.0.
Francois, I should say that tag renaming and deletion abilities are considerably reduced in SE 2.0, at least for "local" moderators. If there is going to be a migration at some point, I suppose tag cleanup should be done before that.
Asaf, how are they limited?
The first thing I know is that it is not longer possible to delete tags (without retagging).
I also believe that renaming also suffers from this issue (we had a recent decision to change [filter] to [filters] and we had to do it manually, despite moderators being involved, it ).
I'm sure that one of the MSE moderators that writes here could be more helpful, but I do recall that some privileges were taken away.
Asaf receives a score of 1 right and 1 wrong.
It is no longer possible to Nuke tags in SE2 without intervention by an employee. That is, Community Mods cannot nuke tags.
Renaming can be done using the merge tool. Earlier last calendar year I pluralised quite a few tags at the request of Theo Buehler, so that is definitely possible.
Can you make [cc.complexity-theory] a synonym for [computational-complexity]?
Similarly [cg.comp-geometry] -> [computational-geometry] and [cr.crypto] -> [cryptography].
Kaveh, I would love to but synonyms are a SE2 feature.