[XESAM] Minutes of meeting 2007-05-15

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/5/17, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
>
> On Thursday 17 May 2007 14:22:50 Fabrice Colin wrote:
>
> > >  * It was brought up again whether this category system should be
> > > independent or dependent on the field definitions. Again we where
> split
> > > in two camps. Strigi/Nepomuk arguing that the fields should be able to
> > > only be defined on certain cats, and Mikkel/jamie on the other side
> > > arguing for simplicity of the spec.
> >
> > I think it should be dependent on the field definitions. For instance,
> > it doesn't
> > make sense to set Audio.Composer on something that's been categorized
> > as Email.
>
> Indeed not all fields apply to all files/categories. Those that apply to
> every
> file should be linked to a generic File category.
>
> Hardly audio.composer applies to a text document, and if assigned doesn't
> really make sense. Such limitations are natural, not artifical. They just
> expose semantics better. To human, composer as such applies to music, but
> software can only understand this link if directly specified. For interop
> with other software, it's better to have explicit field-category links.


I regard the category<->field linking to be a feature just as any other. And
in that respect i t needs to be justified just as any other. Simply "expose
semantics better" is not good enough for me, do you have a more concrete
example of where it enhances user and developer experience?

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070518/1b0ef7d3/attachment.htm