[RFC] Metadata access and storage

[Anders Feder]

Den 06-09-2011 19:54, Carlos Garnacho skrev:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 17:28 +0200, Anders Feder wrote:
>> Den 06-09-2011 16:03, Michael Pyne skrev:
>>> On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 12:58:33 Anders Feder wrote:
>>>> Yes, but these tools has been available for years now and they still are
>>>> not integrated in applications (at least not on the GNOME end). How do
>>>> you propose to rectify this situation (other than to say: "improve
>>>> thyself!" to the developers, which clearly is not accomplishing anything)?
>>> Given that there already exist GNOME-centric tools for semantic data
>>> integration (i.e. Zeitgeist) it sounds like the work needs to be done on the
>>> application end, not by inventing /another/ semantic data framework.
>> Does Zeitgeist have features for integration of semantic data? I
>> thought it was just a timeline of events?
>>
>>> I mean let's face it, the reason the job hasn't been done yet is because the
>>> job is enormous, not simply because the correct library hasn't been invented
>>> yet. This is all not helped by the fact that most developers have zero
>>> inclination to do the extra work to describe ontologies and use semantic
>>> layers (similar in my mind to the choice between using plain text files for
>>> simple config or using a full-blown SQL database). Simply making up a
>>> different backend/semantic interface is not going to help matters unless that
>>> new interface is /significantly easier/ to develop against (and then why not
>>> just port that interface over to the existing frameworks?)
>> What makes you think that the developers are willing to use the
>> existing frameworks if only they were easier to use? The concerns I've
>> heard over using e.g. Tracker as a backend have mainly been related to
>> performance.
> We at the Tracker team can't optimize concerns, for tangible stuff:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=tracker

I did not say I necessarily agree with those concerns. It's just what I 
hear when I ask. Usually it is something along the lines of: "a generic 
datastore like Tracker can never perform as well as one optimized for my 
application." If this is what is hindering adoption of semantic storage, 
why do we continue to pretend that application developers will come to 
Tracker by themselves, when it doesn't appear to be happening?

>
> I do agree with Aaron about SPARQL being a good standard query language,
> it may have a steep learning curve, but is the perfect companion to RDF.

I agree SPARQL is the right query language, I didn't contest that.

> It is right that a simplified interface may help the casual developer
> getting into semantic storage, but that's more a problem to be solved at
> the API level, not the communication one.
>
> Cheers,
>    Carlos
>
>>> Regards,
>>>   - Michael Pyne
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xdg mailing list
>>> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Anders Feder
>> _______________________________________________
>> xdg mailing list
>> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>


-- 
Anders Feder