[Xesam] Ontology snapshot
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Mon Jun 11 04:29:10 PDT 2007
2007/6/10, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
> > > We need to agree on a consistent Source naming.
> > > Source-Source Item examples:
> > > Filesystem -File
> > > Archive -ArchiveItem
> > > Email -Attachment
> > >
> > > It seems resonable to adopt either:
> > > * this is contained in a [Filesystem,Archive,Email]
> > > * this is a [file, archiveitem, attachment]
> > >
> > > But not the both at the same time.
> > Right. This is tricky. I really think the "this comes from"-metaphor is
> > the closes to the intention. The "this is a"-metaphor is already what
> > categories imply.
> > Because of this I also think that Mailbox is a better source name than
> > Email.
> Here Email corresponds to Attachment. That is we are dealing with an
> Attachment that is contained in a Email.
> > The Attachment is more subtle because in some way it does make sense
> > to say that "holiday1.jpg comes from an attachment", I can easily
> > several arguments against this metaphor but it is really not a clear cut
> > case.
> How about File vs FileSystem?
I think I better clarify what I mean. Here's a list of sources:
- Filesystem : The object data is stored on the fs
- Archive : The object data is contained in an archive
- Mailbox : The object data has been extracted from a mailbox
- Attachment : The data of this object is stored as an email attachment
The metaphor is "the content of this object is stored in".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xdg