<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://openproblemgarden.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>Open Problem Garden - Subject tree - Comments</title>
 <link>http://openproblemgarden.org/forum_topic/subject_tree</link>
 <description>Comments for &quot;Subject tree&quot;</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Re: MSC  (re: Subject tree)</title>
 <link>http://openproblemgarden.org/forum_topic/subject_tree#comment-209</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Another comment on MSC: while I&#039;m happy that this classification of mathematical content exists, it seems to me that in graph theory it is not sufficiently deep (and also misses some topics). That&#039;s the reason why we chose to create a different subject tree. And partially it&#039;s also the reason why we hesitate to create new categories in areas outside our field of expertize: we would like to have a classification scheme that makes sense to people working in any particular area: and we can&#039;t easily judge this. Also, some fields may be  more active than others (or have more problems that are easy to explain), and this should possibly be  also taken into account.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, if you (or anyone) has a concrete suggestion, we welcome any ideas. &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:01:58 +0200</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Robert Samal</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 209 at http://openproblemgarden.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>my $.02  (re: Subject tree)</title>
 <link>http://openproblemgarden.org/forum_topic/subject_tree#comment-208</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Hi DOT,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Well, I don&#039;t think you need to worry about your popularity here.. and further, I don&#039;t see how your post could hurt it.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;With the Garden in general and the subject tree in particular, we are trying to make practical choices which make our site as easy to use as possible.  While I agree that there would be some usability benefits to following the MSC classification, I don&#039;t think this would be a good choice for us.  First off, I think the benefits would be slim.. my feeling is that our subject tree is already pretty easy to navigate.  More significantly, following the MSC would force us to use a tree which would require a 4th level and would surely be even more unbalanced in terms of content (and thus harder to navigate).  I think the downside of a more unbalanced tree would outweigh the upside of the MSC classification, but I would be happy to hear what other users have to say about this.  &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As far as the present bias of our site toward discrete math and graph theory is concerned, this is very much something I would like to see change.  If creating new topics and subtopics would lead to people actually posting problems, I would do this pronto.  Do you think this would help?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:42:21 +0200</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>md</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 208 at http://openproblemgarden.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Subject tree</title>
 <link>http://openproblemgarden.org/forum_topic/subject_tree</link>
 <description>Hi everybody,

This posting will probably not increase my popularity..... I apologize in advance! :)

I would like to suggest to re-organize the subject tree according to MSC (www.ams.org/msc), with a layer above the first two digits (which is implicit in MSC anyway).   Reasons:  
* Everybody knows MSC, thus the subject tree would be more easy to browse for the occasional garden visitor.
* This would make the slant towards discrete math (now: 3 out of 10 top level categories) less obvious and encourage
   non-discrete people to submit their problems.

DOT
</description>
 <comments>http://openproblemgarden.org/forum_topic/subject_tree#comment</comments>
 <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:23:14 +0200</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>DOT</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">578 at http://openproblemgarden.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
