[XESAM] Minutes of meeting 2007-05-15

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On Friday 18 May 2007 09:22:30 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen 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.
>
> That is totally correct, but does this have to be reflected in the
> ontology? Why not just have this in a written spec, or just implied by
> common sense?
>
> Each new feature/requirement we add to the spec makes it harder to
> implement and harder to understand.

The easiest way to write it in spec is put this info into ontology. This 
doesn't impose any artifical limitations on the software, so implementations 
can ignore these limits and hope that data sources will provide sane data 
just like they do if the limitations are implied but not specified.

It makes easier to understand the ontology for both humans and software since 
this explicitly specifies which fields should be used for a particular file 
type/category.

It is especially important for software, since it doesn't have any other way 
to deduce this info.

--Evgeny