Do we need more subject areas?

Blog
The best minds from Teradata, our partners, and customers blog about whatever takes their fancy.
Teradata Employee

While writing my first article it occured to me that I was delving into a large subject area that wasn't really addressed by the four subjects currently available.

These are:

  • Viewpoint (is that the software or opinions?)
  • Database
  • UDF
  • General

Well, I guess it could have gone into general, but to me that sounds like "everything else that isn't worthy of having its own subject area". And that wasn't a very appealing category for my first article.

So I propose the following:

  • Use "Database" to cover all things relating to the DBMS itself. Cool recursive queries, Hot tuning topics, Stunning (internal) Stored Procedures and other RDBMS oriented stuff.
  • Rename UDF to "Extensibility". IMHO, UDF is too narrow a title that covers anything that is created in the database, but runs outside of it. Categories that come to mind are UDT's (type and table), UDF's, XSP's and so on.
  • Create a new subject "Connectivity". This covers all the things that might be referred to as "network attached client stuff". Categories that come to mind include JDBC, ODBC, OLEDB, CLI, tactical queries, tools and other stuff that is Teradata oriented but is run outside of the database.
  • Retain general and viewpoint.

Of course I'm not terribly attached to the names I suggest above, but I've bounced the idea around a little and they seem like a good start.

In fact the above suggestions for subject names aren't even mine! My original suggestions were "Network attached client" and "internal stuff"!

10 Comments
Teradata Employee
Agreed. We now have six Subject Areas:

* General
* Database
* Extensibility
* Connectivity
* Applications
* Viewpoint

Right now, we're also thinking of adding a seventh area, "Tools". Seven is probably close to the limit of what we want to add, as beyond approximately that number humans generally can't intuitively grasp the size of the set, and have to resort to other non-intuitive constructs. Or so they say.
Teradata Employee
I second the need for an "Applications" section.
Enthusiast
Whichever section covers adding widgets to your portlets needs to be one there. I'm having a hard time getting this going on my own.
Teradata Employee
I miss TRM/CRM area.
Teradata Employee
Under Applications, can we further filter for TRM, DCM, etc.?
Teradata Employee
One way of doing that right now is via the Tag Cloud sidebar, but we'll certainly look into a more upfront mechanism. That is, after we see all this content come on-line...
Teradata Employee
Ah, the sweet promise of content. It is quite alluring.

I do like the idea of using tags to sort out the two (TRM & DCM). At least until our tidal wave of articles becomes too much for the tag cloud to contain... ;)
Hal
Teradata Employee
My vote is to kill all content areas until it becomes absolutely necessary to have them. The more places I have to go and look for something the less likely I am to spend the effort needed. Tag clouds are fine because it allows the writers to assign some keywords(hopefully relevant) to the content and allows browsing by keyword instead of putting the content into an assigned bucket. I think that the problem with clouds is that they can become cluttered with too many keywords. Also thinking that you need a bucket is something different then actually needing a bucket.
Teradata Employee
@Hal: Well, you can of course use the site entirely ignoring the subject areas. On the front page, all content is aggregated irrespective of subject area. Also, the search is site-wide. We will also be increasing the use and visibility of tag clouds shortly.
Enthusiast
I would like to see a section for BAR.