[Xesam] Nepomuk/Xesam future (was Re: condition of 1.0 ?)

[Ivan Frade]

Hi

 It looks like the problem is not a change of direction, but what to do with
the current work. We can release a XESAM 1.0 but:

1) How many projects are going to implement it?
2) If the change to nepomuk based ontologies and sparQL happens and we call
it XESAM 2.0... the specs will be _completely_ incompatible.

 My point is that to release a spec just for the blessing of having a spec
or because some work was already done doesn't sound right.

 For the credibility of the project, i think it is as bad to release
something and dont commit to it as dont release anything.

Ivan

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/4/24 Arun Raghavan <arun at accosted.net>:
> > 2009/4/24 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com>:
> > [...]
> >>> - Simplified DBus API: Strigi prefers less state in the API and the
> >>>  Tracker team (that's us) want to someday have a proto that basically
> >>>  proxies this API over UDP (so we want to reduce the amount of state
> >>>  drastically too). We thoroughly discussed this during the Hackfest in
> >>>  Berlin and we were almost in tears when we finally started agreeing on
> >>>  the new direction. Let's not undo that.
> >>>
> >>> Seriously.
> >>
> >> Right :-) That cost us a lot of sword fighting, but the agreement is
> >> still there.
> >>
> >> But from my perspective that doesn't leave Xesam 1.0 as irrelevant.
> >> But as I've hinted elsewhere I don't want to impose that one anyone.
> >
> > After all the time and effort that we've put into this spec, it seems
> > a little overboard to just drop it as a lost cause. Especially when I
> > think a *lot* of the ground work to get first-class support for Xesam
> > 1.0 has already been done (correct me if I'm wrong).
> >
> > Why not get the 1.0 implementations out there, and then work towards
> > getting 2.0 along in a way that converges towards the goals Philip
> > listed, in a shorter timeframe than 1.0 took? Especially since there
> > seems to be some agreement on these already. If that process seems to
> > be cumbersome, let's _fix_ it, rather than give up on the effort to
> > standardise the desktop search interface altogether.
>
> I agree. However I think with all the delay we have suffered at this
> point it would be very bad for the project to engage in some long
> meta-discussion. If some parties do not feel inclined to implement 1.0
> I can live with that. It may happen that others implement the spec
> anyways. Just push onward. Like Ivan also mentioned in his latest
> email about the ontology it is much easier to do a healthy discussion
> having a stable base.
>
> If Nokia require a spec that does less roundtrips to do what they want
> then I think it is fair that they don't want to spend time on
> something they ultimately will have to redo.
>
> The bottom line: Let's JFD 1.0 and we can easily proceed on 2.0 in
> parallel.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Mikkel
> _______________________________________________
> Xesam mailing list
> Xesam at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xesam/attachments/20090426/381e8717/attachment.htm