re bionet.organisms.zebrafish

BIOSCI Administrator biosci-help at NET.BIO.NET
Fri Jun 3 20:59:33 EST 1994

> How about naming the group bionet.zebrafish
> the organisms doens't really add any information,
> nor does the hierarchy help getting there, these things are
> not like directories or folders on a computer, just newsgroups.
> Thomas Burglin

Au contraire, mon ami.  That is precisely what they are.  Each segment
of a USENET name represents part of a directory structure in the news
partition. Thus bionet.celegans would represent, e.g.,
/news/spool/bionet/celegans while bionet.organisms.celegans would be
/news/spool/bionet/organisms/celegans.  This is why computer-types get
up in arms when unnecessary USENET name segments are invented because
they create thousands of unnecessary directories on computers around
the world.  If celegans would be the only inhabitant of the
bionet.organisms group then organisms would be a waste.  However I am
certain that we will get other proposals that will continue to
populate such a directory.  On the other hand we could also clearly
just hang them off the bionet directory (but then again one could
always try to put all one one's files in one directory 8-).

This is not a major issue in my mind, so if the celegans group wants
to stay bionet.celegans, so be it.  Other groups will undoubtedly
populate the organisms group.  Again, it is what I receive from the
discussion leader on this that will determine what goes out to a vote
on Monday.


				Dave Kristofferson
				BIOSCI/bionet Manager

				biosci-help at

More information about the Bioforum mailing list