Xesam meta-meta-data spec needs attention.

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/5/1, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
>
> On Tuesday 01 May 2007 21:47:42 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > 2007/5/1, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
> > > On Tuesday 01 May 2007 17:55:26 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> > > > > > $MIN_CARDINALITY
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >   Minimum cardinality. Minimum number of properties of this
> type
> > >
> > > you
> > >
> > > > > must
> > > > >
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > for a given file.
> > > > > > >   Lets specify mandatory properties. Default is 0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any example of a mandatory property? Does it even make
> > >
> > > sense?
> > >
> > > > > File name or URI?
> > > >
> > > > I don't see why they have to be mandatory. Not everything comes from
> a
> > > > file.
> > > >
> > > > In the search API it is specifically avoided to use global
> identifiers
> > >
> > > for
> > >
> > > > objects - as fx a mandatory uri would be. My opinion is that we
> > >
> > > shouldn't
> > >
> > > > *force* URIs or any mandatory property onto any object.
> > >
> > > The intent of this was to make life easier for apps by guaranteeing
> > > existence
> > > of some basic properties, however I do agree that the list would be
> > > extremely
> > > short if not non-existent.
> >
> > Also taking URI as an example, you would need to enforce that it
> actually
> > contains a valid uri or else it would be useless anyway. We could add
> > another type called "uri" which guarantees that the values form a valid
> > uri. I don't think we should guarantee that any fields are indeed set
> > though.
>
> At this moment it makes sense to drop minCardinality. It can be added
> later if
> needed. Another issue worth considering in the perspective is units.


Units... I stumbled across that a while ago, but haven't given it much
thought. I think that it might be just as confusing as it useful - also it
is a new requirement to meet the standard (that might or might not be
trivial to add).

IMHO We should finalize the first edition of the standard and extend it if
> the
> need arises.


Yes, but we shouldn't paint our selves into a corner :-)

I find it strange that nobody else comments on this. Perhaps everybody
> agree :)


Hehe, I can bet you that not everybody agrees :-) Most of the other involved
persons are core maintainers of search engines so are pretty stressed out
already...

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070502/401ffc9e/attachment.htm