[Xesam] abstract properties?
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 01:19:30 PST 2008
On 14/02/2008, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> This is in response to the lengthy discussion on #xesam that happened while I
> was sleeping:
> >(22:35:51) kamstrup: in other words a field is abstract if and only if it
> has children
> >(22:36:17) jamiemcc: yes and is not used in searches
> >(22:36:30) kamstrup: also meaning that third parties can not extend fields
> which does not have any children in the Xesam onto
> >(22:36:45) kamstrup: moreover I also think we agreed that you can not
> assign any value to an abstract field
> >(22:36:54) kamstrup: (maybe obvious)
> >(22:36:57) jamiemcc: yes
> >(22:37:12) kamstrup: good, I think we agree then
> >(22:37:15) jamiemcc: abstract are like intermediate classes
> >(22:37:22) kamstrup: yes
> >(22:37:31) jamiemcc: they ar enot used directly but instead are always
> inherited from
> >(22:37:36) kamstrup: only leaf nodes of the onto can contain values
> The benefits of this approach:
> >(22:54:46) kamstrup: and having this as a restriction in Xesam does not
> >render us incompatible with Nepo
> This renders xesam incompatible with most if not any rdfs based approaches.
> xesam->rdfs_derivative mapping is ok but it breaks in the opposite direction.
> >(23:37:07) kamstrup: but it is even more likely that there are two good
> contradictory arguments
> >(23:37:44) kamstrup: my primary arg is simplicity
> Certainly not the simplicity of the ontology and not the simplicity(and
> feasibility) of onto extensions.
FIRSTLY: let me make it clear that I am not anal about any of these
issues. I am prepared to change my mind given convincing arguments.
SECOND: There are really two issues at hand here.
1) Can fields with children have values?
2) Can an item belong to a category that has children?
To the case in point:
I guess the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I have two design
analogies to present to you:
* Unix file system. You can not put data in a directory. You can put
files in a dir, and data in files. That is it. It is proven to be a
* Object Oriented Code. Java interfaces provides clear cut
abstractions. Allowing abstract fields to have values is like
programming only with normal classes and doing derivation on these.
Programming with Java interfaces will not give you fewer .class
files, but the program will be simpler to grok as a code base. Other
hackers can easily pinpoint the cases of abstraction, and if the
interfaces a properly designed then your program is more easily
( * Mime types? You can be "image/jpg", but can you be an "image"? I guess not.)
> >(23:38:03) kamstrup: query expansion will also be easier
> So your argument is that having to expand (grandparent=value) into
> ((grandparent=value) or (parent=value) or (property=value)) if we get rid
> of "abstract" properties somehow leads to too much complexity?
There can be multiple levels of abstract fields mind you. If you
expand xesam:related you get:
With abstract fields(9): related, conflicts, depends, contains, knows,
links, derivedFrom, inReplyTo, supercedes
Without(5): conflicts, contains, knows, inReplyTo, supercedes
Ofcourse if we use the design I agitate for, then the last case would
have more fields.
> Query expansion will necessitate property tree traversal in both cases. The
> only difference is what fields are included in the resulting list: all or
> only non-abstract.
> The DB engine will discard those grandparent and parent criterias as soon as
> it sees that appropriate tables are empty. No performance overhead here
I am not a database expert, so I don't know much here. I would just
assume that you could more easily optimize your db schema if you know
what fields can be extended in the future. In your model all fields
can be extended in any way.
> >(23:38:48) kamstrup: it is a nice invariant that only leaf nodes can
> contain data
> >(23:39:02) kamstrup: and that you can not create sub-fields of leaf nodes
> Is this a benefit at all? Especially, considering that xesam onto doesn't
> usually define data format-specific stuff(except for email). That is we don't
> define ODFDocument, MSOOXMLDocument(sorry for cursing), PDFDocument. We only
> define a Document and have no way to know if it will serve us well or will
> need to be extended.
Right. And we have a mimeType field to do the exact matching.
On the question about extensibility. My philosophy is like this: Our
design is only extensible in the way we want it to be. No matter how
much we abstract things out we can not be sure we can encompass
everything. Make a decision and accept that it will not fix every
problem in the world.
In most cases people will find a way to work around their problems,
still within the framework. End users will be just as happy. Otoh,
most devs will never have any problems at all.
> >(00:28:27) vandenoever: kamstrup: suppose you have a type 'giraffe' and you
> label certain animals with it
> >(00:28:52) vandenoever: then you find out that there are subspecies
> >(00:28:52) vandenoever: what do you do?
> >(00:28:53) vandenoever: change all the old data?
> >(00:29:01) kamstrup: add a field "subSpecies"
> >(00:30:23) kamstrup: if I did this it would be bad design be me in the
> first place
> It's not about bad design. It's about(surprise!) simplicity. What you are
> proposing is that for every type of data, we need to define an abstract class
> and a specific class. eg AbstractTextDocument and SpecificTextDocument.
> Otherwise you will be either unable to extend the SpecificTextDocument or
> unable to actually create instances of AbstractTextDocument.
No I am not proposing that. I am proposing that we do this in the
specific cases we want extensible.
And again watch out that we have two issues at hand here. Abstract
fields and cats.
> >(00:30:51) vandenoever: kamstrup: and humans will always make bad designs
> >(00:30:55) kamstrup: if I was not sure that there was exactly one type of
> giraffe, then I should have made a group for it
> >(00:31:00) kamstrup: yes
> >(00:31:04) kamstrup: you are right
> >(00:31:04) vandenoever: it's not about perfection, it's about usability
> >(00:31:20) kamstrup: and my solution with a subSpecies field is perfectly
> ok in my book
> >(00:32:47) kamstrup: It goes to show that you may not be able to solve the
> problem "correctly", but that you can apply a perfectly fine workaround
> You're effectively throwing out semantics with this workaround like generic
> inheritance, limitations on what properties can be assigned to a class.
I was in fact thinking exactly about generics when I wrote those line to Jos :-)
While I might break the type tree, applications and humans will still
have a model that can be used to classify a given giraffe. I don't
want my model to take genetically engineered giraffe subtypes into
account (even though it could).
What I hear you saying is that we should always subclass, subclass,
and subclass in the name of semantics. This is directly against the
popular OO design rule of "favour aggregation over inheritance".
> Oh, and can't resist commenting on this wonderful article:
> > (00:13:26) kamstrup: vandenoever:
> > (00:13:29) kamstrup: it is a must read
> > (00:13:33) kamstrup: for any programmer
> > (00:13:48) vandenoever: Architecture Astronauts: they are way out there!
> So this guy takes some marketing hype, puts in it the mouths of unrelated dev
> guys and blames them for it?
He describes two persona as I read it. The marketing guy "redefining
the industry", and coder who thinks that the paper clips I fire at him
are "messages" (while the correct abstraction would clearly be
BallisticObject). Messy, but the point is clear.
> (22:31:45) kamstrup: Phreedom: If we can get a word with jamiemcc we might
> be able to clear up the thing about abstract fields...
> (22:31:58) kamstrup: (both of you : consider the last line a ping)
> (22:32:17) jamiemcc: pong!
> (22:34:22) kamstrup: ouch
> (22:34:33) kamstrup: now we just wait for a pong from Phreedom
> (22:34:56) kamstrup: jamiemcc: anyway, the case is the following:
> (22:35:30) kamstrup: I am of the belief that we agreed on that fields where
> abstract if they had any children
> (22:35:41) jamiemcc: yes
> (22:35:51) kamstrup: in other words a field is abstract if and only if it
> has children
> (22:36:17) jamiemcc: yes and is not used in searches
> (22:36:30) kamstrup: also meaning that third parties can not extend fields
> which does not have any children in the Xesam onto
> (22:36:45) kamstrup: moreover I also think we agreed that you can not assign
> any value to an abstract field
> (22:36:54) kamstrup: (maybe obvious)
> (22:36:57) jamiemcc: yes
> (22:37:12) kamstrup: good, I think we agree then
> (22:37:15) jamiemcc: abstract are like intermediate classes
> (22:37:22) kamstrup: yes
> (22:37:31) jamiemcc: they ar enot used directly but instead are always
> inherited from
> (22:37:36) kamstrup: only leaf nodes of the onto can contain values
> (22:37:53) jamiemcc: yes - its unlikely a leaf node would need a child in
> the future
> (22:38:08) kamstrup: and it will not be able to get one
> (22:38:13) kamstrup: without us breaking api
> (22:38:18) jamiemcc: consider them final classes!
> (22:38:23) kamstrup: yes
> (22:38:25) kamstrup: now
> (22:38:48) kamstrup: Phreedom is of the opinion that a field with children
> is not necesarrily abstract
> (22:39:10) kamstrup: s/sar/ssa
> (22:40:15) kamstrup: I want to know what Jos expects
> (22:40:29) kamstrup: unfortunately I can not find IRC logs about us
> discussing this
> (22:40:39) kamstrup: but I am quite sure we agreed on what we just talked
> (22:40:43) jamiemcc: Well EG take Media as a class
> (22:40:51) jamiemcc: it has 2 children Video and Audio
> (22:41:14) jamiemcc: no enetity will explicity be of class media
> (22:41:22) jamiemcc: it will be either video or audio
> (22:41:26) kamstrup: jamiemcc: Media is a content type not a field
> (22:41:42) kamstrup: abstractness only makes sense on fields
> (22:41:56) kamstrup: content and source types does not contain data
> (22:41:58) jamiemcc: oh ok
> (22:42:19) jamiemcc: oh yeah in tracker we use DC as abstract hierarchy
> (22:42:26) kamstrup: otoh, an item can not be of an abstract content type
> (22:42:42) jamiemcc: DC:Subject never has a value but its children
> DocSubject does
> (22:43:14) kamstrup: right
> (22:43:46) kamstrup: jamiemcc: in tracker - is it possible to retrieve the
> contents of an abstract field?
> (22:43:49) jamiemcc: so is there a counter example?
> (22:43:52) kamstrup: (i would expect not)
> (22:43:56) jamiemcc: no
> (22:44:01) kamstrup: good
> (22:44:02) jamiemcc: but you can search with it
> (22:44:06) kamstrup: yes
> (22:44:18) kamstrup: that is also how Xesam is modelled
> (22:44:36) kamstrup: I am just trying to make sure that I understand the
> entire situation
> (22:44:44) kamstrup: and that we all agree on what we agree on :-)
> (22:46:45) jamiemcc: its unlikely i would agree to allow non leaf nodes to
> have values without very good reasons
> (22:54:17) kamstrup: I am quite sceptic about it too
> (22:54:46) kamstrup: and having this as a restriction in Xesam does not
> render us incompatible with Nepo
> (23:24:41) # vandenoever появляется на канале #xesam
> (23:24:45) vandenoever: ello
> (23:24:48) kamstrup: yo
> (23:25:06) kamstrup: I discussed the onto with Phreedom the other day
> (23:25:17) kamstrup: and it turned out we did not agree on some of the
> (23:25:22) kamstrup: and I wanted your opinion
> (23:25:35) kamstrup: I have just had a small chat with jamiemcc about it
> (23:25:45) kamstrup: Here's what:
> (23:26:06) kamstrup: I believe we agreed on that an abstract field was one
> with children
> (23:26:27) kamstrup: ie, that the only fields which can contain values was
> the leaf nodes of the onto
> (23:26:51) kamstrup: Phreedom thought otherwise
> (23:26:53) vandenoever: kamstrup: i never heard that discussion
> (23:26:59) kamstrup: ok
> (23:27:11) vandenoever: it seems to me that also branch points can have
> (23:27:25) vandenoever: but that was simply my assumption so far
> (23:27:28) kamstrup: I was just sure that "we" (for a suitable definition
> of "we") discussed this at some point
> (23:27:35) vandenoever: are there arguments for or against?
> (23:27:37) kamstrup: but I can not find an IRC log of it
> (23:27:52) kamstrup: well
> (23:27:55) kamstrup: I hae one for
> (23:27:57) vandenoever: kamstrup: maybe while i was offline
> (23:28:01) kamstrup: perhaps
> (23:28:12) kamstrup: consider xesam:legal
> (23:28:32) kamstrup: it has a few children xesam:copyright, disclaimer, etc
> (23:28:50) vandenoever: also the notion of 'abstract field' is new to me,
> (23:28:54) kamstrup: ok
> (23:29:09) kamstrup: "abstract" will just mean that it can not have a value
> (23:29:32) kamstrup: but you can search them
> (23:29:46) vandenoever: so they are only aliases for groups
> (23:29:52) kamstrup: right
> (23:30:26) kamstrup: a group might be more spot on, because that is really
> what an abstract field is
> (23:30:36) kamstrup: a collection of related fields
> (23:31:16) kamstrup: with this picture it does not make sense to return the
> value of xesam:legal
> (23:31:27) kamstrup: because - what value to return?
> (23:31:44) kamstrup: (without the notion of a canonical child field)
> (23:32:12) vandenoever: canonial child field?
> (23:32:25) vandenoever: but fields have canonics, right?
> (23:32:27) kamstrup: a given one to pick as default within the group
> (23:32:36) vandenoever: e.g. we can say a field can only appear once
> (23:32:37) kamstrup: (xesam will not have this)
> (23:32:46) kamstrup: ?
> (23:32:58) vandenoever: e.g. a picture can have only one width
> (23:33:31) kamstrup: yes, but I don't see where you are going...
> (23:33:36) vandenoever: kamstrup: you're saying xesam:legal can have only 1
> value, right?
> (23:33:41) kamstrup: no
> (23:33:45) vandenoever: kamstrup: never mind, you lead
> (23:33:57) kamstrup: I was trying to say that xesam:legal can not have a
> (23:34:06) kamstrup: because it would be ambiguous
> (23:35:05) vandenoever: but it would not be if you had a limit on the # of
> (23:36:13) vandenoever: i see the difficulty though
> (23:36:18) kamstrup: sorry, I still don't get what you mean
> (23:36:35) vandenoever: i'm sure there is a good argument somewhere in
> literature that decides this question
> (23:36:45) kamstrup: that is very likely
> (23:36:49) vandenoever: certainly the nepomuk guys know this kind of stuff
> (23:37:07) kamstrup: but it is even more likely that there are two good
> contradictory arguments
> (23:37:44) kamstrup: my primary arg is simplicity
> (23:38:03) kamstrup: query expansion will also be easier
> (23:38:35) kamstrup: the onto as such will be easier to compute on
> (23:38:48) kamstrup: it is a nice invariant that only leaf nodes can contain
> (23:39:02) kamstrup: and that you can not create sub-fields of leaf nodes
> (23:39:21) vandenoever: i do not get the latter one
> (23:39:33) vandenoever: ah, now i do
> (23:39:42) kamstrup: sure?
> (23:40:03) vandenoever: yeah, if you allow to assign a value to field X, you
> cannot later fork it
> (23:40:09) kamstrup: right
> (23:40:11) vandenoever: because it would render X abstract
> (23:40:15) kamstrup: yes
> (23:40:19) kamstrup: an API break
> (23:40:32) vandenoever: so this would severly limit the flexibility of your
> (23:40:38) kamstrup: yes
> (23:40:41) kamstrup: that is the purpose
> (23:41:07) kamstrup: it gives a very clear cut image of the onto
> (23:41:18) kamstrup: it consists of fields and "groups"
> (23:41:27) kamstrup: as you put it
> (23:41:33) kamstrup: very easily grokkable
> (23:41:40) vandenoever: but it breaks compatibility with the mainstream
> (23:42:03) kamstrup: huh? which?
> (23:42:24) vandenoever: e.g. dublin
> (23:42:53) kamstrup: afaik there is no grouping/hierarchy in dc
> (23:43:43) vandenoever: goes to check
> (23:44:41) kamstrup: also just checked
> (23:45:01) vandenoever:
> (23:45:23) vandenoever: 'Narrower Than:' means 'subcategory'
> (23:45:38) vandenoever: e.g. Image and MovingImage
> (23:45:48) kamstrup: ah, ok
> (23:47:14) kamstrup: well
> (23:47:31) kamstrup: I think it is up to interpretation whether or not you
> can assign the type Image to something
> (23:47:49) kamstrup: or if you have to use one of its children
> (23:48:05) kamstrup: clearly any image is either Still or Moving
> (23:48:36) kamstrup: so it would be odd to assign only Image and not
> something Narrower
> (23:49:17) vandenoever: the narrower/broader is only used once, so it's hard
> to tell
> (23:49:22) kamstrup: yes
> (23:50:07) kamstrup: consider again xesam:legal
> (23:50:08) vandenoever: question if a 'super-class' is instantiable
> (23:50:13) kamstrup: what is the use?
> (23:50:20) kamstrup: what should I assign to it?
> (23:50:52) kamstrup: is it when I find legal info that does not fit one of
> its children?
> (23:50:59) kamstrup: that would be a bad idea at least
> (23:51:23) kamstrup: because I might overwrite valuable info somebody else
> put there
> (23:51:46) vandenoever: let's consider actor, director, painter, singer
> (23:51:52) vandenoever: all of them are artists
> (23:51:59) vandenoever: some are actor and painter
> (23:52:26) vandenoever: if i have folder with movies and songs, i'd like to
> have a column 'artist'
> (23:52:41) vandenoever: and not 'director' and 'singer' in separate columns
> (23:52:46) vandenoever: (not always at least)
> (23:53:35) vandenoever: to me it seems these ontologies can be so broad in
> (23:54:35) vandenoever: there may be computational advantages now, but
> sooner or later practical problems will turn up
> (23:54:50) kamstrup: in your case I think the app would detect the media
> (23:55:00) vandenoever: let's consider the numbers
> (23:55:05) kamstrup: and display the matching child of artist
> (23:55:17) vandenoever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number
> (23:55:50) vandenoever: the set of rational numbers is part of the set of
> real numbers
> (23:56:02) vandenoever: but not all real numbers fall into some other
> (23:56:22) kamstrup: yes they do
> (23:56:29) vandenoever: so if you make an ontology of numbers, you cannot
> put pi somewhere
> (23:56:33) kamstrup: either you are rational or irrational
> (23:56:38) kamstrup: that goes for humans too ;-P
> (23:56:46) vandenoever: damn, wrong example
> (23:56:48) vandenoever: oops
> (23:57:05) vandenoever: so we have the complex numbers and the uncomplex
> (23:57:07) kamstrup: you are talking to a math student
> (23:57:39) vandenoever: ok, so where do you place '1' ?
> (23:57:51) kamstrup: on the real line
> (23:57:58) kamstrup: I see
> (23:58:05) kamstrup: that 1 is also a complex number
> (23:59:17) vandenoever: wonders if there is an ontology of numbers
> (23:59:24) kamstrup: well
> (23:59:30) kamstrup: in some sense there is
> (23:59:39) kamstrup: it is called number theory
> (23:59:44) kamstrup: :-)
> (23:59:47) vandenoever: is it computer parsable?
> (23:59:52) kamstrup: nope
> (00:00:05) kamstrup: it does not have finitely many elements
> (00:00:18) kamstrup: infact I suspect it has uncountably many
> (00:00:33) vandenoever: what, more than 100?
> (00:00:38) vandenoever: wow!
> (00:00:41) kamstrup: yes
> (00:00:53) kamstrup: it is bigger than G_MAX_ULONG
> (00:00:55) vandenoever: i'd say number theory is a good benchmark for
> (00:01:01) kamstrup: hehe
> (00:01:06) vandenoever: s/ontologies/ontology frameworks/
> (00:02:24) kamstrup: Hmmm, maybe I should try and come up with something
> that could model the set of number fields
> (00:02:34) kamstrup: it is dangerous ground here
> (00:02:55) kamstrup: because in math a "field" is actually a set of number
> (00:02:59) kamstrup: numbers
> (00:03:21) vandenoever: kamstrup:
> (00:04:07) kamstrup: what about it?
> (00:04:12) vandenoever: look at 'decimal' and 'integer'
> (00:04:33) kamstrup: eeek
> (00:04:53) vandenoever: actually, the whole hierarchy was meant as an
> example, but i just noticed that one
> (00:05:11) kamstrup: this is the exact thing I am trying to avoid for Xesam
> (00:05:24) vandenoever: kamstrup: it is possible to make in instance of each
> of those fields
> (00:05:28) kamstrup: it looks like an example of twenty guys picking on
> (00:05:57) kamstrup: I am more pragmatic
> (00:05:58) vandenoever: kamstrup: it's also quite pervasive by now
> (00:06:04) kamstrup: yes
> (00:06:06) kamstrup: I know
> (00:06:20) kamstrup: but that does *not* mean that it is good
> (00:06:26) kamstrup: Java is also quite pervaive
> (00:06:40) kamstrup: but almost everybody agree that it has a very messy api
> (00:06:43) vandenoever: kamstrup: and java is also very nice
> (00:06:51) kamstrup: yes
> (00:07:09) kamstrup: but why does ByteArrayInoutStream throw an IOException
> on read()?
> (00:07:10) vandenoever: so we continue in esperanto?
> (00:07:23) vandenoever: ontologies are like languages and languages are
> (00:07:26) kamstrup: sorry, crying kid, 2s
> (00:07:52) vandenoever: perfect onto is impossible, same is true for perfect
> onto onto
> (00:08:06) vandenoever: see GEB
> (00:08:29) kamstrup: back
> (00:09:45) kamstrup: vandenoever: I read a good quote by one of the MS
> architecture guys...
> (00:10:15) vandenoever: kamstrup: funny
> (00:10:21) kamstrup: "Make sure that the simple stays simple, but don't be
> tempted to make the complex simple"
> (00:10:36) kamstrup: (very paraphrased)
> (00:10:38) vandenoever: prefers the einstein quote
> (00:11:00) vandenoever: also it does not say anything
> (00:11:24) kamstrup: my quote or the einstein quote?
> (00:11:30) vandenoever: both :-)
> (00:11:39) kamstrup: he
> (00:11:51) vandenoever: einstein: "make everything as simple as possible,
> but not simpler"
> (00:12:00) kamstrup: that is not the same
> (00:12:39) kamstrup: vandenoever: have you read Joel On Software,
> about "Architecture Astronauts"?
> (00:12:44) vandenoever: so how is the ms quote relevant?
> (00:12:46) vandenoever: no
> (00:12:58) kamstrup: that is one of my all time favorite blog posts
> (00:13:26) vandenoever: i agree that we should KISS, but apparently whether
> adding restrictions makes things simpler
> (00:13:26) kamstrup: vandenoever:
> (00:13:29) kamstrup: it is a must read
> (00:13:33) kamstrup: for any programmer
> (00:13:48) vandenoever: Architecture Astronauts: they are way out there!
> (00:14:20) vandenoever: kamstrup: i agree with the post already, i prefer to
> work too
> (00:16:43) vandenoever: kamstrup: he's mixing architecture and framework in
> his blog
> (00:16:57) kamstrup: yeah, he is not always 100% right
> (00:17:06) kamstrup: but he has a lot of really good points
> (00:17:27) vandenoever: so, back to the issue
> (00:17:56) vandenoever: i'd prefer to keep the xesam onto similar to the
> nepomuk one
> (00:18:13) vandenoever: and also similar to rdfs ontos
> (00:18:34) vandenoever: because it would allow us to reuse other peoples
> (00:18:44) vandenoever: and actually try to be compatible
> (00:18:59) kamstrup: I want to be Nepo compat too
> (00:19:02) kamstrup: fear not
> (00:21:38) kamstrup: is digging in to the Nepomuk docs
> (00:22:04) kamstrup: and he is very intimidated by the extent of the
> (00:24:48) kamstrup: vandenoever: Consider
> (00:25:11) kamstrup: Looking at the commentary on that makes me say that you
> can not assign a value to it
> (00:25:45) kamstrup: it does however have the data type of string
> (00:25:52) kamstrup: which I must consider a bug
> (00:25:59) kamstrup: or a bug in the comment string
> (00:27:11) vandenoever: kamstrup: NIE is defined in NRL:
> (00:27:20) kamstrup: I would consider it outright dangerous if applications
> startedd to put stuff in nie:legal
> (00:28:27) vandenoever: kamstrup: suppose you have a type 'giraffe' and you
> label certain animals with it
> (00:28:52) vandenoever: then you find out that there are subspecies
> (00:28:52) vandenoever: what do you do?
> (00:28:53) vandenoever: change all the old data?
> (00:29:01) kamstrup: add a field "subSpecies"
> (00:30:23) kamstrup: if I did this it would be bad design be me in the first
> (00:30:51) vandenoever: kamstrup: and humans will always make bad designs
> (00:30:55) kamstrup: if I was not sure that there was exactly one type of
> giraffe, then I should have made a group for it
> (00:31:00) kamstrup: yes
> (00:31:04) kamstrup: you are right
> (00:31:04) vandenoever: it's not about perfection, it's about usability
> (00:31:20) kamstrup: and my solution with a subSpecies field is perfectly ok
> in my book
> (00:32:47) kamstrup: It goes to show that you may not be able to solve the
> problem "correctly", but that you can apply a perfectly fine workaround
> (00:34:15) vandenoever: that is incompatible with a solution some else might
> (00:34:53) kamstrup: by "incompatible" you mean that there is no direct 1-1
> map. But I can still create a script or something that does a clean 1-1 map
> (00:35:04) kamstrup: after all we are describing the same data set
> (00:35:17) kamstrup: and I will have all relevant info
> (00:36:19) kamstrup: vandenoever: My take on it is like this
> (00:36:40) kamstrup: using groups is like using interfaces in Java
> (00:37:03) kamstrup: allowing fields with children to have values is like
> using classes all the way
> (00:37:18) kamstrup: ie, never use java interfaces, but do subclassing
> (00:37:51) kamstrup: sloppy programming
> (00:38:20) vandenoever: but i do not want to go mapping
> (00:38:39) vandenoever: not too much anyway and not in a complex way like
> you propose
> (00:38:58) kamstrup: I don't see why we would have to map to anything
> (00:40:49) vandenoever: kamstrup: i need some sleep, shall we ask Phreedom
> to let the nepomuk guys talk a bit about this?
> (00:40:57) vandenoever: kamstrup: are you coming to fosdem?
> (00:41:46) kamstrup: vandenoever: No, unfortunately not
> (00:42:07) vandenoever: ah, too bad, trueg is coming and also one of the
> nepomuk guys
> (00:42:28) kamstrup: I am thinking that we should use some conferencing
> software at some oint
> (00:42:39) vandenoever: anyway, i'll catch you later, it's good to discuss
> stuff like this
> (00:42:40) kamstrup: to talk "face to face" all of us
> (00:42:48) kamstrup: sleep tight
> (00:42:50) vandenoever: kamstrup: i've an n800 :-)
> (00:42:56) kamstrup: bastard!
> (00:43:03) kamstrup: show off!
> (00:43:08) vandenoever: i look really ugly on it
> (00:43:21) kamstrup: hehe, we can turn video off :-)
> (00:43:35) vandenoever: ok zzz
> (00:43:35) # vandenoever: Не в сети.
> (00:43:35) # vandenoever покидает канал (Выход: "Remote closed the
> connection" ).
> (00:53:34) # kamstrup: Не в сети.
> (00:53:34) # kamstrup покидает канал (Выход: "kornbluth.freenode.net
> irc.freenode.net" ).
> (00:53:36) # kamstrup появляется на канале #xesam
> (01:00:31) kamstrup: jamiemcc: Have you started the Xesam impl? If not I
> have a few things to discuss with you about xesam-glib
> (01:01:04) kamstrup: I am thinking about (or more correctly, I am going to)
> putting some code there for implementing a basic server
> (01:02:02) kamstrup: if you have not started, I wanted to hear if you where
> interested in using it (if not Tracker's need is to specialized for a general
> (01:02:18) kamstrup: it is just that a lot of the session/search book
> keeping can be generified
> (01:09:38) # kamstrup: Не в сети.
> (01:09:38) # kamstrup покидает канал (Выход: ""Ex-Chat"" ).
> Xesam mailing list
> Xesam at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the Xesam