[XESAM] Minutes of meeting 2007-05-15

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/5/18, Joe Shaw <joe at joeshaw.org>:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 5/18/07, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you provide a more concrete example of why you can't e.g. define a
> > Object.HitType field instead to provide the same functionality?
>
> Oh, there's no reason why you can't.  In fact, this is exactly what
> Beagle does.  There is no object hierarchy concept in Beagle results,
> every returned result is a "hit" and contains properties.
>
> Basically, the values for HitType and FileType indicate a contract to
> clients about what types of properties to expect.  A HitType of
> "File", for instance, means that beagle:ExactFilename will be set.  A
> GUI wouldn't attempt to display beagle:ExactFilename if HitType
> weren't "File".
>
> > What specific fields do different hit types have?
>
> The only ones that come immediately to mind are the ones for File.
> Things like beagle:ExactFilename, beagle:Extension, beagle:Filename,
> beagle:NoPunctFilename, beagle:SplitFilename.  You can imagine similar
> properties for items which come from emails, like "folder" or
> "attachment title".  These are independent of the content or type of
> the document being indexed itself.


Putting the EmbeddedObject stuff aside for a moment...

Would the HitType/FileType structure of Beagle not be implicit with a
Category structure like this:
http://www.grillbar.org/xesam/object-tree.png(this is not the old
example again)? Especially if you couple this with a
Field->Category map (such that, fx, only Objects of category File has the
ExactFileName field set) like the Strigi/Nepomuk camp want. Atleast it seem
to cover the examples so far.

Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070519/e09c7d05/attachment.htm