[Xesam] Nepomuk/Xesam future (was Re: condition of 1.0 ?)
ivan.frade at gmail.com
Sun Apr 26 01:32:01 PDT 2009
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Roberto Guido <bob4mail at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 24 April 2009 17:22:08 Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > at this time so xesam does not look a viable standard at the moment
> I can accept this, the most important point is to admit it.
> Next question is: would ever be Xesam a viable standard?
> Proposal from Ivan (please, correct me!!!) is to fork the Nepomuk ontology
> maintain it in a community-driven structure, defining then the common API
> access information. Is this possible? Is this a solution? Is this in the
> interest? Would "relevant trackers" agree to apply what specified here?
Lets use the XESAM architecture:
1) Ontologies: I propose to move to nepomuk based ontologies, maintained in
the XESAM project. so yes, it includes fork.
2) Query language: To use SparQL with the Update and some operation
extensions (wihtout that it is useless).
3) Communication protocol: No alternatives here, it is a point where we can
innovate in XESAM.
And a general reorganization of the web. I still find it confusing :)
> What I'd like to see is to avoid a new failure as in Xesam 0.X: if a
> standardization is possible let's work to define that, otherwise close this
> project and move efforts in other directions.
Everybody agrees that we need a project like XESAM, but the project must be
up-to-date. For that it needs changes in various levels:
* Coordination of the project: we have the tools and the infrastructure, but
they need a reorganization.
* Contents of the project: The 3 points i wrote above.
I hope this helps, and soon we will be discussing how to proceed with these
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Xesam