[Xesam] Ontology snapshot

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/6/11, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
>
> On Monday 11 June 2007 14:29:10 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > 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
> > >
> > > imagine
> > >
> > > > 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".
>
> The objection I have here is that Attachment should be Email. Since that's
> where attachments are stored. As you know attachment is just another part
> of
> an email. Stored *in* an attachment is a stretch.
>
> To me personally, it's better the other way e.g. file etc. The reason for
> this
> is:
> Resource is a Document
> Resource is a File
> Resource fileName "xxx"
> Resource fileLocation "file://path/xxx"
>
> vs
>
> Resource is a Document
> Resource is a Filesystem
> Resource fileName "xxx"
> Resource fileLocation "file://path/xxx"
>
> Categories imply "is a" definition. Also, source-specific properties apply
> not
> to the source as a whole.


It is unclear to me what your prefer... I assume it is the first. Given this
I take it you mean that the "is a"-relation should apply to sources as well.
In this case the previous examples would become

File
ArchiveItem
Email
Attachment

In this setup I think "source" is a misleading word, but I can't think of
anything better right now (I think there must be at least 30C in the office,
my brain is steaming)...

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070611/04f12049/attachment.htm