[XESAM] New meeting, date+time proposals please
phreedom.stdin at gmail.com
Fri May 18 13:14:27 PDT 2007
On Friday 18 May 2007 12:27:30 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > > * should we allow for multiple inheritance (ie multiple parents for
> > > fields)?
> > I believe there were two issues intermixed: multiple parents for fields
> > and
> > multiple types or as you say categories for files.
> True. That is two issues, but I got the impression that the Strigi/Nepomuk
> camp where in favor of both?
> As I consider multiple inheritance (both cats and/or fields) to be a
> somewhat big feature request it needs to be founded on solid reasoning if
> we should go with it.
I don't consider multiple file types/categories a big feature. Suppose a file
has type/category Audio. This means it belongs to the following categories:
File, Media, Audio. So it already has multiple types. The question is whether
we allow these types to be outside of strict hierarchy.
Multiple field inheritance, is too in my opinion is not a big feature request
if inheritance is implemented as such. It might be useful if we link multiple
external ontologies. If we stick with a relatively simple core ontology, it
may not be required. Time will tell.
> Unfortunately we didn't really get to discuss any
> practical use cases in the IRC meeting.
> I have not been able to come up with a good use case (of multi inh.)
> myself, but maybe some one here can?
Source code: It is a text document(contains text) and software(has
dependencies on other software).
More information about the xdg