Xesam meta-meta-data spec needs attention.
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Sat May 12 13:54:28 PDT 2007
2007/5/12, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
> On Saturday 12 May 2007 18:02:08 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > > While
> > > > this could be done, the machine readable ontology does have quite a
> > > > benefits. Fx:
> > > >
> > > > * You could update the ontology without updating any applications
> > >
> > > search
> > >
> > > > engine code
> > > >
> > > > * 3rd parties could extend the ontology by installing their own
> > >
> > > Yes, you could update or extend the ontology, but the new fields won't
> > > automatically populated until the engine is told how to get those from
> > > the original data.
> > > Does this make sense ?
> > Yes you are entirely right. There are still many reasons to allow for
> > extensibility though.
> > It might be that some search engines will extract more rich data than
> > xesam spec. With easily introspectable fields applications can pick this
> > on the fly.
> > It has also been discussed several times how to use common metadata
> > extractors. If applications could install a special-purpose extractor
> > we also need a way to define new fields...
> The idea is that applications will use Xesam API to introspect fields, so
> them it doesn't matter where field definitions come from, which format
> And the question is maybe we should use API to define these fields instead
Well, the current ssearch API contains no way to introspect the availble
fields (or set them). This could be part of a metadata API, which is yet to
be discussed. Under any circumstance I think that it is valuable to be able
to parse and update the ontology without a running service...
> xesam::field f("music:composer");
Would this be a dbus service or just a library? I don't think it is a good
idea to hide the actual implementation behind a library. In my eyes the
Right Way (TM) is to standardize the way to create xesam ontologies and then
provide a helper lib to do it (if it is necessary at all).
> So each meta-data extractor defines their specific fields via API + xesam
> defines a set of pre-defined fields to enforce the standard.
Yes, I think that xesam should provide a ready-to-ship ontology. How to
install new ontologies is another matter, how to install new extractors is
yet another matter that has only been discussed lightly without much
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xdg