Hello!
First of all congratulations for a nice approach to present "R fields" in
more coherent way. When I started with R I was often frustrated with long
list of packages, similarities between them, ... If I would take a slow
approach (one thing at a time) things would be easier from the start, but
usually one wants to know what a new program is capable of. This is esential
if one wants really to switch to R.
About ctv:
Paul Gilbert wrote:
For my own purposes the "Econometrics" view is just fine, but I do
sometimes get questions about dse from people in fields that are
different enough that they might not even know to look in
"Econometrics." A time series view might be useful even if it only
said see also ... . Another approach to this might be to have
sub-views so, for example, "Econometrics" and "Control theory" could
both point to "Time series."
Achim Zeileis responded:
Yes, that is, of course, an obvious idea but it requires more
coordination between the different views, hence we've decided not to
support hierarchically ordered views.
Re: "ControlTheory". If someone would raise his hand and provide a view
for that, it would be great. It could, of course, link to the
"Econometrics" view (and vice versa) but they wouldn't have a formally
defined subset in a "TimeSeries" view.
I think that there is a lot of "fields" where this views cover the same
stuff. When I first read about ctv I thought it will be implemented more
in somewhat "hierarchical" or kind of "multiple" way, since for example
linear models come usefull in many different fields and some people might
never look under "Econometrics" view as Paul stated.
I realize that "hierarchical/multiple" is far from easy and I do not have
any clear idea how to implement it, but it would probably easier to maintain
larger set of views in such a way and it would be easier to generate new
ones.