2007/5/16, Evgeny Egorochkin <<a href="mailto:phreedom.stdin@gmail.com">phreedom.stdin@gmail.com</a>>:<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Wednesday 16 May 2007 17:24:57 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote: > It was evident from the last meeting that we are badly in need of a meeting > where more search engines are represented. This basically boils down to > Pinot, Recoll and Beagle devs. Please chime in with date+time proposals > ASAP (this also goes to devs of other engines). > What we need to discuss in this meeting is: > >  * rdf vs .desktop ontology > >  * are categories and fields dependent or independent? Clarification: whether we can explicitly specify that a field is applicable only to a certain class/type/category. >  * 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.</blockquote><div> 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. 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? Cheers, Mikkel </div> </div>