[Xesam] Nepomuk/Xesam future (was Re: condition of 1.0 ?)

[Sebastian Trüg]

On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:32:01 Ivan Frade wrote:
> Hi
>
> 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 and
> > maintain it in a community-driven structure, defining then the common API
> > to
> > 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.

Actually I think it makes more sense to get the Nepomuk ontology development 
process into the open. We already started a sourceforge project[1] for that 
but so far did not have the time to set it up properly.

Evgeny and Philip already developed patches for NMO. Now we "only" need to get 
those into the actual ontologies.

Cheers,
Sebastian

[1] http://sourceforge.net/projects/oscaf/

> 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
> changes.
>
> Ivan