[RFC] Metadata access and storage

Michael Pyne mpyne at purinchu.net
Tue Sep 6 17:02:20 PDT 2011

On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 17:28:56 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?

What I talked about regarding Zeitgeist was based on browsing its website 
right before I sent the email. My understanding based on that was that 
Zeitgeist was a more full-fledged semantic framework than mere events. I can 
see from re-reading the description that it does indeed claim to be more of a 
semantic logging framework.

With that said it certainly talks about many features which would be useful in 
a more generic semantic layer but you'd have to talk with someone more 
familiar with the library to see how far away it really is.

> > 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.

That's actually a really good point, but I suppose my thought would be what 
would make Semantk have great performance that could not be implemented into 
Tracker or strigi/Nepomuk or similar?

 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20110906/f7f80669/attachment.pgp>

More information about the xdg mailing list