[XESAM] Ontology sketch. Feedback needed. This time with attachment.

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/6/5, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
>
> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 00:25:45 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > 2007/5/30, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I'd like you to take a look at the ontology sketch
> > >
> > >
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/PhreedomDraft?action=AttachFile&do=view&t
> > >arget=viz.png
> > >
> > > It's not complete. Some fields/classes are dropped intentionally.
> > > I'd like to hear some feedback first.
> > >
> > > Points of interest:
> > > *** Sources
> > >         *Source hierarchy
> > >         *Which properties belong to content and which to source?
> >
> > I was just  scanning through
> > http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/~mylka/nie.pdf<
> http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/%7Emylka
> >/nie.pdf>. As far as I can read in Nepomuk DataSource does not derive
> from
> > DataObject. Also it states that a DataObject is something where you can
> > physically retrieve some bytes in some way or other. Taking this into
> > account I don't think it makes sense to let User derive from DataObject
> > either.
> >
> > Personally I would prefer to have a field Category and a field Source,
> but
> > I know from IRC that this will cause trouble in some implementations,
> but I
> > would like to have this stuff discussed on-the-record so to speak; so
> > please chime in with your concerns regarding this.
>
> Nepomuks DataSource is absolutely different from Xesam sources.
>

Unless that document is horribly outdated I can't se how. A DataSource
designates the origin of some DataObject if I'm not mistaken. This was also
the idea behind xesam sources.

They might differ on the technical level but the idea behind them seems the
same, or is there something i miss?

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070605/d0e1ce74/attachment.htm