Hi<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Roberto Guido <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bob4job@gmail.com" target="_blank">bob4job@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Looking at the Tracker's modified Nepomuk ontologies (here -><br>
<a href="http://git.gnome.org/cgit/tracker/tree/data/ontologies/" target="_blank">http://git.gnome.org/cgit/tracker/tree/data/ontologies/</a> ) which Philip<br>
Van Hoof point out some weeks ago, I see a lot of comments and<br>
corrections and additions.</blockquote><div><br>Yes, we were working in some client applications, and we needed some changes. <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Where those changes have been discussed (if they have been discussed in<br>
any public place)? </blockquote><div><br>Nowhere. There were no active forum at that time to discuss our proposals (that was one of the reasons to push for an open source nepomuk)<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
There are rationales about those modifications? </blockquote><div><br>Yes, we needed them to implement some real use cases (i want to emphasize that are Real-World needs). <br><br> We did our extensions carefully: trying to follow the nepomuk philosophy and keeping the consistency of the ontologies. However, there are usually more than one possible solution for each problem, so we would really appreciate comments about our proposals. (This was a second reason for the open source approach)<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
To<br>
avoid to fragment the ontologies yet before to spread them, can we<br>
discuss them together in the perspective to evaluate inclusion in<br>
"official" stream and/or reach a consensus?<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Yes, of course. I planned to do that once the svn was reorganized (start to write tickets about our changes)<br><br>IIRC the changes are:<br>1) NMO: added the mimeparts of a message to represent correctly emails<br>
2) NMO: added mail account information<br>3) NMO: added RSS feed support<br>4) NMO: added IM support<br>3) Some changes in property ranges here and there<br>4) New ontology for downloads and transfers (MTO at the moment)<br>
5) A draft of location ontology (MLO at the moment)<br>6) NMM: new ontology to unify multimedia representation<br>7) Some extensions for FM Radio support (not sure those are commited yet)<br>8) Web history support ( <a href="http://live.gnome.org/Tracker/WebHistory">http://live.gnome.org/Tracker/WebHistory</a> )<br>
9) Different solution for lists (implemented on playlists)<br>...<br><br>And maybe more. We put quite a lot of effort using/developing the ontologies :)<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Ivan<br><br></div></div><br>