[XESAM] Ontology sketch. Feedback needed. This time with attachment.

[Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen]

2007/5/30, Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
>
> Sorry forgot the most important part :)
>
> ----------------
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like you to take a look at the ontology sketch
>
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/PhreedomDraft?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=viz.png



Thanks for the effort. I like the big picture. As always the devil is in the
details :-)

Just to avoid confusion:
 * Solid blue arrows = "is a child category of"
 * Dashed blue arrow = "is a child field of"
 * Purple arrow = "Field belongs to category"


Points of interest:
> *** Sources
>         *Source hierarchy
>         *Which properties belong to content and which to source?
>
> *** Multimedia ontology



I think it would be good to able to differentiate between photos and other
imagery. Visual cat can't be used for this since you would get videos under
here too...


*** Contact ontology


Do you have anything here, or is this just blank so far? Anyway I see that
this can be tricky given that we want to support many protocols and home-,
work-, and -mobile accounts (and be extensible as well). Here's aproposal:

Contact.FullName
Contact.Name
Contact.MiddleName
Contact.Surname
Contact.Nickname

Contact.Nickname.<protocol> --> Contact.Nickname (screen name)
Contact.Account.<protocol>  --> Contact.Account (email address, msn login
etc)

And a set of predefined protocols such as Phone.Home,Phone.Work,
Email.,EmailJabber,IRC,MSN,Yahoo, etc. Fields such as
Contact.Account.Phone.Home would derive from Contact.Account.Phone.

This gets a little many-fielded but I fail to see how we can make it
simpler.

*** Corner cases:
>         * Complex file formats like databases, mailboxes.
>         * Problematic classes like Source code.
>
> *** DataObject properties
>         These are the most generic ones. We need to decide whether
> DataObject
> implements DC or DC is placed one level lower.



I don't think that it makes sense to have (full) DC on DataObjects. Fx what
is the dc:subject of an IRC-log? Maybe a subset of DC can go here...

Speaking about DC I think (as has also been discussed in the past) that DC
fields should be "abstract" in the sense that you can't assign values to
them.


*** Document
Document.Layout = {portrait,landscape}
Document.PaperType = {A4,A5,Letter, etc}


*** Property interitance:
>         As you may have noticed, there's no sent/recv date for messages
> and other
> obvious fields are missing.


<SNIP>


> For Email case, sent time = content creation time;
> recv time = local copy ceation time(File creation time as repoted by the
> FS)


Ok. If we do things  like this these things have to be *clearly* specced out
somewhere.


Cheers,
Mikkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20070530/d56e4111/attachment.html