Xesam meta-meta-data spec needs attention.
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Sat May 12 03:29:30 PDT 2007
2007/5/11, Joe Shaw <joe at joeshaw.org>:
> On 5/11/07, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Basically we have four desktop ontologies that I know of:
> > Strigi:
> > Tracker :
> > http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/tracker/trunk/data/services/
> > Spotlight:
> The plan with Beagle was always to use existing ontologies where they
> exist.. of course, we never really got around to doing that, which is
> why a lot of them that aren't covered by Dublin Core are in the
> "fixme" namespace.
> I still think this is probably the way to go, especially if we have a
> desire to easily transition to or from RDF. Tracker's seems like the
> closest to this.
I'm not sure I understand you. What exactly do you mean Trackers ontology is
close to? And is this good or bad? :-)
I haven't been following this thread super closely. Why define these
> in .desktop-like files rather than in some sort of documented
> specification? Code is what ultimately will be setting these, so it
> will have to obey them.
Because we could allow 3rd parties to install their own ontologies so we
wouldn't have to cover everything known to man.
With machine a readable ontology you could also create tools to visualize
the ontology - they tend to be complex beasts...
I have some more reasons in the mail from Fabrice I just replied to...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xdg