[Xesam] dumping NID3/NEXIF for NMM
Leo Sauermann
leo.sauermann at dfki.de
Mon Jun 15 13:46:30 PDT 2009
Hi Urho,
thanks for the flamy mail and being open.
I hope you get to laugh at least once today!
I joyfully switch to a flaming answer, you haven't seen me flaming yet....
I would say we agree that we continue to maintain both NID3, NEXIF, take
up NMM into the xesam/oscaf standardization track now, and we can give
feedback about NMM.
Once all of us (not only you) clearly see that NMM is better than NID3
and NEXIF, we can think about dropping something.
I want to shed some light on the details of NID3 or NEXIF, I think your
arguments would be different if you knew them.
NID3 is integrated with NCO - the artists are represented as contacts -
so they ARE integrated with the "semantic desktop".
also Evgeny contributed to them, so saying "they would better never have
existed" is saying that we wasted our time, which I think we did not :-)
we took standards that worked very well for the it industry for the last
years, this is the common process when designing an ontology: look for
existing standards and copy them.
Look, even the W3C people did base their calendar ontology on the vCal
standard, do not shoot at this approach, it is a good one. Consider the
time it took to make MPEG7 (by the way, you may think about porting that
one to an ontology, at least partly, instead of rolling your own) - we
did consider this and say: invest time into what we need, not endless
standardization discussions that others did before you.
It was a well-thought and good decision to start with something
* simple
* that works
we looked at all the alternatives, and if we would have done as you say
(start from scratch) - would have failed within the small 11mio eur
budget we had. (well, you get the idea...)
we have running code now in aperture.sf.net. it works. its fine.
we expected that someone would come later and fix our decision - so YES
- its good - we need to have NMM, but I want to see it working first
before I dump the existing stuff.
we are talking about money here to change aperture, it will take some
time of our users to swallow this and I am not going to stand up the
heat of our existing userbase if I am not fully convinced of a new ontology.
note: you never showed us NMM, so this time, I can happily flame back
and like to switch to the language I would use between gunnar and me in
our office:
show your assets or shut ... .... up.
googling for NMM, I find is this draft:
http://xesam.org/main/Hackfest2008/nmm
is this NMM?
be precise, it has a good reason that the namespace is also the HTTP
address where I can download the ontology using HTTP to validate it.
(the draft does not even mention where I can get the ontology via HTTP....)
currently you propose to rewrite aperture.sf.net with an ontology I
can't quite grasp, sorry, but this is not the way you are going to
convince me. This is also why the OSCAF part of our work is here: to
help establish a good documentation of what happens.
best and hope that your day is getting better,
mine was just wasted by a leaking roof and water in unpleasant places
of our flat,
and the flat below, and soon: the flat below that....
Leo
It was Urho Konttori who said at the right time 15.06.2009 15:59 the
following words:
> ext Leo Sauermann wrote:
>> It was Urho Konttori who said at the right time 09.06.2009 10:17 the
>> following words:
>>
>>> I can be maintainer of NMM once we agree to include that in the
>>> official ontologies (and drop the NID3 and possibly even NEXIF while
>>> doing so). Also, by replacing the nid3, and nexif, we have 1 less
>>> ontology to get a maintainer for ;).
>>>
>>> Pros:
>>> I designed that together with Evgeny Egorochkin and Mikael Ottela.
>>> NMM is still not completely sanity tested and may still need quite a
>>> few changes, so I would be a good person to do that.
>>>
>>> Cons:
>>> Quite busy until next autumn.
>>>
>>
>> I oppose to drop NID3 and NEXIF - they are quite sanity tested and
>> good because - they just copy ID3 and exif, two accepted industry
>> standards.
> And how does NID3 handle WMA files? How about m4a files? how about ogg?
>
> It's really bad idea to start having format specific ontologies. It's
> like saying that we have a 'outlook' ontology and it should be fine
> for all 'outlook' type of apps, instead of having a messaging ontology.
>
>> If NMM is not finished and you have no time to improve it, we would
>> lose compabiltiy with aperture and the existing code when using NMM.
>>
> Well, NMM will be finished pretty soon. And cry me a river if someone
> looses support of a ontology that should never have existed.
>
>
>> Once NMM can cover all that NID3 and NEXIF cover and is "sanity
>> proofed", we can discuss replacing NID3 and NEXIF, until then, I
>> would keep promoting that we maintin NID3 and NEXIF and fix bugs there.
>>
> There is also no need to cover all. EXIF is just wonderful format, but
> it is intended mostly to be used during opening of the particular
> image file so that barrel distortion, lens effects, lighting and so
> forth can be nicely corrected by software. Most of it is not intended
> for categorization/searching type of cases. Thus, NMM has much smaller
> subset of it. It also has the support for a subset of XMP, which is
> essentially suffering from the same problem. I agree that the image
> side will probably be need to be extended, but it's much better to
> have a subset that is definitely needed than a format that offers tons
> of unnecessary fields. The same applies to NID3, just in a smaller scale.
>
> Also, whereas nid3 is just a copy of the id3 to an ontology format,
> NMM has been designed for semantic desktop use.
>
>> Once both are fine, we can make a decision to drop one and
>> communicate it. Note that dropping something (=making someone elses
>> code break which was fine before) is usually something hated by
>> everyone in the process (=because you force people to invest into
>> something they could have for free if the change did not happen), so
>> I would not do this lightheartedly.
>>
> Sure, we can keep those alive and just say that they have been
> superceeded by NMM, please move over there. It's totally fine way of
> keeping the support and moving on.
>> but good, we need more ontologies, I wrote you down as maintainer of NMM
>>
> Thanks!
>
> And sorry about the flamy email. This really has not been one of my
> better days and I do apologise for letting it show.
>
> Kind regards,
> Urho
>
>
>> best
>> Leo
>>
>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Urho
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xesam mailing list
>>> Xesam at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann
Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080 Fon: +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern Fax: +49 631 20575-102
Germany Mail: leo.sauermann at dfki.de
Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________
More information about the Xesam
mailing list