2007/5/31, 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 Thursday 31 May 2007 17:27:46 jamie wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 14:50 +0300, Evgeny Egorochkin wrote: > > On Thursday 31 May 2007 12:50:24 Antoni Mylka wrote: > > > Hello phreedom, > > > > > > For those of you who don't know me I'm currently working on a desktop > > > ontology for the Nepomuk project [1] (Nepomuk Information Element > > > Ontology). The current draft is available at [2]. > > > > > > Overall. Mikkel Kamstrup has already noticed, that the notation used is > > > not typical. The "Classes" are not actualy RDFS classes but "property > > > categories". Otherwise the distinction you made between a File and > > > Content means that these are two separate entities. Could you elaborate > > > a bit more? > > > > This is a result of the limitation that only one resource can be used to > > describe a file. There are 2 major class trees: content and source. They > > for now are subclasses of DataObject, but this may be changed e.g. in > > favor of DC. Each file gets assigned one content and one source class. > > There are no conflicting deviations from RDFS, just a subset. It might be > > more appropriate to rename Source branch to SourcedFromXXX, but I don't > > think it's appropriate here and/or will be accepted. > > > > Current limitations: > > 1) One resource per file or its equivalent like message attachment or > > archive content. > > shuold be ok > > > 2) no multi-inheritance for classes/properties > > should be ok Not so sure about it. > > 3) RDF object is always literal. Can't directly reference resources.(has > > workarounds). > > what are the workarounds? The workaround is to specify an URI as a literal and hope software understands this in cases like linking archive contents. > vCard basically needs structs (non literal resources) for things like 1 > or more contact addresses (struct of phone, email , fax etc) If we go for structs, we get an equivalent of a full-blown RDF(s) minus multiinheritance.</blockquote><div> I can eassily see where structs would make lots of sense, but I think we should leave them out for simplicity reasons. OTOH if everybody and their grandma can write an indexer that supports structs then I'm fine, I just don't think this is the case... </div> </div>Cheers, Mikkel