[Xesam] Wrapping up for Xesam Search Spec RC3

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2008/8/20 Michael Albinus <michael.albinus at gmx.de>:
> "Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen" <mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com> writes:
>
> Hi,
>
>> Let me first say that I/we are planning a workshop to review and
>> document the ontology on the hackfest coming up in September. This is
>> post RC3 however, so you comments should defitinely be be handled
>> before that. My general opinion is that all descriptions needs to be a
>> lot more elaborate than just a few words, like they are now.
>
> Maybe you can tell me when you plan this review session? If you don't
> object, I could participate in this session (I live at Berlin :-)

Great! All I can say at this point is that it is going to be somewhere
between  19th-22nd of September. If you are more interested in this
you can subscribe to the changes of
https://wiki.maemo.org/Desktop_Search_Hackfest


>>> - Sometimes, xesam:summary or xesam:snippet return "highlighted" text
>>>  (hits enclosed by ..., for example). Is it possible to get an
>>>  indication for this? It influences, how the summary (or snippet) is
>>>  visualized by the Xesam client.
>>
>> xesam:summary will contain a pregenerated summary of the text. Either
>> by extracting it from a metadata field inside the file or by
>> extracting it from a some chunk of text inside the file. I don't know
>> if we should set any standard for the contents of this. Plain UTF-8
>> probably. xesam:snippet is another matter. It is always generated on
>> the fly, and highlights the matching search terms if the engine knows
>> how to do that.
>
> I've taken the xesam:summary example from your xesam-yahoo-service
> script (of xesam-tools). The summary contains highlighted hits by
> HTML's bold tag.  So it isn't plain UTF-8, but marked-up text.
> Something, a client shall know.

Ok, that should probably be considered a bug of xesam-yohoo-service.
Duly added on my TODO :-)

>>> - Definitely for post-1.0-release: I miss attributes, describing hits
>>>  in a bug database, like Debian BTS, Bugzilla, ...
>>
>> What do we really miss apart from a xesam:Bug content category?
>
> I have written a small search engine accessing Debian's BTS. I use
> xesam:keyword, xesam:owner, xesam:title, xesam:url, xesam:mimeType,
> and xesam:sourceModified. Additionally, I have an own ontology for
>
> debbugs:foundDate -- date when the bug has been found
> dateTime; maybe xesam:sourceCreated could be used.
>
> debbugs:fixedDate -- date when the bug has been closed
> dateTime
>
> debbugs:foundVersions -- software versions the bug has been reported for
> list of strings
>
> debbugs:fixedVersions -- software versions the bug is fixed with
> list of strings
>
> debbugs:package -- name of the software package
> string (like "xesam", "emacs")
>
> debbugs:status -- status of bug fixing
> string (like "pending", "fixed", "moreinfo", "notabug",
> "unreproducible", "wontfix")
>
> debbugs:originator -- name and email address of submitter
> string
>
> debbugs:severity -- severity of the bug
> enumeration (important, normal, minor, wishlist); alternatively, it
> could also be an integer
>
> I won't claim that it is a complete bug ontology. These are just the
> fields I found useful in the given case.

He, I bet you can pick up a good flamewar over this if you poke some
of the maintainers of the various bug trackers out there :-)

OTOH, if you polish it and out it out somewhere public you might get
the moment of first-to-set-up-shop and have other folks run with it
:-)

debbugs:affectedPackages might be useful to some... Just thinking out loud...

Cheers,
Mikkel

-- 
Cheers,
Mikkel