2007/6/17, Evgeny Egorochkin <<a href="mailto:phreedom.stdin@gmail.com">phreedom.stdin@gmail.com</a>>:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sunday 17 June 2007 21:27:29 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:<br>> 2007/6/17, Evgeny Egorochkin <<a href="mailto:phreedom.stdin@gmail.com">phreedom.stdin@gmail.com</a>>:<br>> > This time pretty picture contains only parts of the ontology I've been
<br>> > actively changin since it just takes too much time to make nice layouts<br>> > :)<br>> ><br>> > <a href="http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/PhreedomDraft?action=AttachFile&do=view&t">http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/PhreedomDraft?action=AttachFile&do=view&t
</a><br>> >arget=viz-part.png --------------------<br>> > Proposal:<br>> ><br>> > While ontology is still not complete, it's structure is unlikely to<br>> > change much. It's quite hard to get it absolutely right in theory...
<br>> ><br>> > So my proposal is to start implementing it. Whatever inconsistencies,<br>> > missing<br>> > fields, ambiguity or other problems we encounter will be resolved in the<br>> > process. This way, by the time xesam
1.0 spec is ready, so are actual<br>> > implementations.<br>><br>> I think we need more documentation on the ontology. This includes:<br>><br>> - better description of each field and cat (just inlined in the rdfs for
<br>> now, we can extract documentation programmatically)<br>> - a document describing the ontology as a whole<br><br>I tried to document some stuff in my emails by giving detailed answers. Now<br>who's going to dig it all and turn into something more human-friendly? :)
<br><br>> On top of this we also need:<br>> - data types for fields (fx integer, float, string, date, boolean)<br><br>Usually, it's evident, but some cases can be quite hard. Also we haven't<br>decided on some issues like how to represent
<a href="http://email.to">email.to</a>,cc,bcc<br><br>> - whether or not it is abstract<br><br>This will be one of the lastest things done due to obvious reasons.<br><br>> - others?<br><br>Many problems will be evident during implementation.
<br><br>I expect to provide one more snapshot which will be the basis for<br>implementation. It's time to settle ideological issues. Practical ones will<br>be resolved on the go.<br><br>> ---------------------<br>>
<br>> > Controversies:<br>> ><br>> > Should we have file extension field?<br>><br>> Yes, I think so.<br><br>ok<br><br>> Should we index folders just like other files?<br>><br>><br>> You mean that we have the same fields on files and dirs (ie both share the
<br>> File cat)? I think this could be ok if we add an isDirectory field or<br>> something.<br><br>I meant that should we include folders in the index at all? How is this<br>useful?<br><br>> --------------------<br>
><br>> > Implemented support for multiple filesystems, removable media indexing,<br>> > disk<br>> > images in files.<br>> ><br>> > This is accomplished by introducing FileSystem content type, which
<br>> > represent a<br>> > generic filesystem.<br>> > For disk images, the Source of the filesystem is set to File.<br>> > For hdd partitions and removable media, Partition source is used. It lets<br>
> > specify both device and uuid(e.g. to identify different usb sticks).<br><br>> Ok, maybe I'm overengeneering , but would it make sense to have<br>> Device<--Partition. This would allow us to potentially have mobiles, and
<br>> other non-storage specific devices, in the onto.<br><br>I wish somebody would enlighten us on how all these things work in detail.<br>Seems like UUID is a property of *nix partitions, so identifying usb sticks<br>
formatted as FAT is out of question :/<br><br>It seems that indeed Partition should be replaced with BlockDevice and<br>Partition is a good candidate for FileSystem child.</blockquote><div><br>Right. Btw, partitions can have labels - the drive title as presented to the user.
<br></div><br>There are a few things that I find missing in the ontology snapshot:<br> - A NewsFeed metaphor. I'm thinking a Feed source and a News category. I don't know how usenet groups fit into this though. Maybe we need a small hierarchy: Remote <-- (Feed,NewsGroup,??)
<br> - A snippet kinda field. This is a special field since it autogenerated on the fly, so I don't know where it fits in the onto. Maybe it needs special treatment.<br><br><br>Cheers,<br>Mikkel<br><br>PS: To those who missed it, which I assume to be most people, I've put an autogenerated wiki-format of Evgenys snapshot ontology on
<a href="http://wiki.freedesktop.org/wiki/XesamOntologyDraft">http://wiki.freedesktop.org/wiki/XesamOntologyDraft</a>. It still needs a lot of work. It is the tool demo/rdfs2moinmon.py in xesam-tools bzr (<a href="http://grillbar.org/xesam-tools">
http://grillbar.org/xesam-tools</a>) that I used to generate it.<br></div>