[XESAM] Ontology snapshot
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 13:30:29 PDT 2007
2007/6/7, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
> On Thursday 07 June 2007 17:23:16 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > 2007/6/7, Fabrice Colin <fabrice.colin at gmail.com>:
> > > On 6/7/07, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com>
> > > > To ease the query expansion on the servers each Category
> > > > will have a property "abstract" that if true implies that objects
> > > > can not be assigned to this category. In the standard xesam
> > > > spec non-abstract cats are just the leaf nodes of the cat tree
> > >
> > > Are you sure about this ?
> > > Looking at Evgeny's viz.png diagram, I would think some
> > > non-leaf categories would be useful, eg Document and Message.
> > Ok, maybe .odf et al could go in the Documents cat, but I think Message
> > should be abstract. IM and such would have its own subcat (right
> Yes for IM. It's likely that IM will be a home for VOIP and video-capable
> services as well, since there's close to 100% overlap for these atm and
> changing too fast to account for.
> For documents, I'm still not sure about the full list of Document
> subcategories like Spreadsheet etc.
> It's likely that an abstract category like PIM is going to be introduced
> todos, calendars etc. It might absorb some of the exotic additions to
> Packages like MS one.
> > Anyway this just goes to show that the Abstract property of the cats is
> > redundant.
> Since it doesn't introduce any limitations and still may be useful to
> somebody, why not have it.
I just want to clarify this for the record. The reason for using abstract
categories is because it is, not only useful, but also essential to some
What I am saying is really: this is not a result of feature creep :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xdg