[XESAM] Minutes of meeting 2007-05-15

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/5/17, Fabrice Colin <fabrice.colin at gmail.com>:
>
> On 5/16/07, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com> wrote:
> > MEETING:
> >  * It was proposed that we had a platform independent libxesam with the
> core
> > non-dbus related utilities such as query parsing and query construction.
> It
> > was the general consensus that the time wasn't right. It might be good
> to
> > have one, but we should wait and reconsider this when the spec was set
> was
> > more mature. Toolkit specific libs abstracting away dbus and other evils
> > should be provided at some point though.
> >
> Agreed. I don't see this as a must-have.
>
> >  * We reopened the services/types/categories debate, and quickly settled
> on
> > the name categories to avoid confusing the word "type" from field types.
> > Example categories are Video, Audio, Email, Contacts, etc.
> >
> Did you guys come up with a full list ?


Nope, not yet. We still need to agree on how the "list" should be
structured.

>  * It was brought up again whether this category system should be
> > independent or dependent on the field definitions. Again we where split
> in
> > two camps. Strigi/Nepomuk arguing that the fields should be able to only
> be
> > defined on certain cats, and Mikkel/jamie on the other side arguing for
> > simplicity of the spec.
> >
> I think it should be dependent on the field definitions. For instance,
> it doesn't
> make sense to set Audio.Composer on something that's been categorized
> as Email.


That is totally correct, but does this have to be reflected in the ontology?
Why not just have this in a written spec, or just implied by common sense?

Each new feature/requirement we add to the spec makes it harder to implement
and harder to understand.

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070518/311b24ad/attachment-0001.htm