Xesam meta-meta-data spec needs attention.

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On Saturday 12 May 2007 00:14:55 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> Basically we have four desktop ontologies that I know of:
>
> Strigi:
> http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/kdesupport/strigi/src/streamanalyzer/fieldprope
>rties/ Tracker : http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/tracker/trunk/data/services/
> Spotlight:
> http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Carbon/Reference/MetadataAttribute
>sRef/index.html
>Nepomuk: ? I couldn't find one... Sebastian, Jos, Phreedom? 

Parts of Nepomuk are still being drafted. Naturally it's RDF-based. I can ask 
Nepomuk if they are ok with releasing some parts of the draft, though you can 
consider Strigi onto a reasonable approximation of Nepomuk onto with some 
workarounds due to:
* absense of file types(as of yet)
* ban on multiple-node descriptions of files.
* some extensions in situations where Strigi had to have something before 
Nepomuk
* some files like strigi_font or strigi_trash are way to specific and will be 
moved out of the onto and into appropriate analyzers sometime soon.

Otherwise the design ideas/criterias for Strigi onto are the same as Nepomuk 
and this leads to a quite predictable result.

> I've looked a bit into these and I think the Strigi one is the one closest
> to what I had in mind. It has received a lot of thought and seems generally
> coherent. 

There are several minor corrections I'd like to make, but reluctant to do so 
until I have a critical mass of fixes and,preferably, xesam draft since this 
also involves analyzer code changes.

Of course, I'll let you know what I'd like to have fixed and why.

Also, I'm prepared to explain any and all design decisions behind 
Strigi/Nepomuk onto.

> It would be ideal to store the ontology drafts in a VCS, but we 
> have none yet - I don't know if the wiki would be disastrous or not... Any
> ideas on a temporary storage idea until we get a subversion module at fdo?

Wiki is ok. The only way I see this working is to authorize one person to make 
changes to the onto. It's too small and has too many internal dependencies to 
allow ad-hoc editing. Changes should be proposed, discussed and only then 
committed.

You still can use diff on wiki article contents and send patches for 
discussion/approval.

--Evgeny