[XESAM] Search API Update Proposals

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On Tuesday 07 August 2007 22:18:12 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:

> > I'd prefer to allow to specify categories like regular field criterias.
> > The
> > reason is simplicity and ultimate flexibility. Remember some services
> > might
> > not use xesam class trees.
>
> I see the point here, but it also has its drawbacks. I imagine that some
> backends will want to treat cats/sources different than fields when
> building the query. They will have to look up all <field> elements and
> check what type they belong to. That might be expensive (compared to a
> straight forward parser just building the olde query).
>
> We could be extensive via a "type" selector instead:
>
> <type name="category" value="xesam:Audio"/>


Since the selector can appear anywhere in the query how does it matter? The 
query has to be completely traversed before making any decisions.


> > > >XML/INI
> > > >
> > > > Agreed to install both via convertors.
> > >
> > > I think this is a really bad idea if the only reason for this is that
> > > we couldn't agree. If it is because it makes life easier for everybody
> > > else too then I'm more positive, but I do not think this is the case.
> >
> > Strigi needs to produce RDF anyway, so dropping it is out of question for
> > us.
> > The question is how and in which way to support it.
> >
> > > I was actually pro-rdf/xml until I tried writing a sax parser for
> > > rdf/xml... Does anybody know of an expat based parser for rdf/xml?
> >
> > I'm looking into it ATM. We also can get away with a simplified one, e.g.
> > we
> > don't need nested stuff.
>
> I don't know how expat handles custom entity defs and such either. Also if
> we want to allow cross refs between files concerns me...

If by cross-references you mean ontology being split into several files, it's 
about the same regardless of file format.

I appears not to be a problem to write a simplified sax parser for rdf/xml. 
It's structure is quite simple.

-- Evgeny