[Xesam] [nepomuk] [nepomuk-kde] An open-source project for desktop ontology maintenance

[Sebastian Trüg]

You are right. If we create a new infrastructure (we cannot reuse the nepomuk 
ticket system anyway since it is not open) I would say that we migrate the 
existing tickets.
The next step would then be to merge in the extensions by Evgeny and Philip.
All in all I just think we need a system that gives us all the power we need. 
xesam.org and the nepomuk server both do NOT provide it.

Cheers,
Sebastian

On Monday 04 May 2009 22:56:14 Leo Sauermann wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I think the nepomuk/OSCAF sourceforge project that Sebastian Trüg and I
> have created
> for OSCAF a few months ago may help here.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/oscaf
>
> we have a code repository where everyone can write who is willing to
> work on it,
> and a ticket system,
> and the authority to officially continue the nepomuk ontologies there,
> backed by the OSCAF foundation.
>
> the nepomuk ontologies will move there anytime we find enough volunteers to
> work on it, or commercial developers to join OSCAF to work on it.
>
> we already have a TRAC for tickets there and I can move the NEPOMUK
> ontologies
> over.
>
> Still, that doesn't solve the problem of "who is going to do a good job
> here",
> as the problem is not "we have to create a new project",
> we already had that on sourceforge since 20th February 2009,
> the problem is:
>
> <old wiseguy>
> who is going to work on the 23 tickets that we already know of, which
> were reported
> by Evgeny and I don't have the time to fix them?
>
> http://dev.nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org/wiki/OntologyMaintenance
>
> in my experience, creating a new project does only swallow worktime and
> discussion time,
> creates fud in all the stakeholders involved, and may drag apart the
> community.
> but does not solve these tickets.
> I would guess that hte first thing a new admin of a new project would do
> is say
> "this has to be simpler than before, all the tickets are garbage anyway
> we need to get rid
> off, so lets start with a blank slate, horray".
>
> Well, the tickets are there because, after some years of work, these are
> the hardest
> ontology nuts to crack.... and some of them are also from NOKIA guys who
> use the ontology for maemo.
> </old wiseguy>
>
> so, old wiseguy agrees that we must join forces and come to one ontology,
> but this does not magically solve the 23 hard-nut problems that are
> unsolved since months.
>
> best
> Leo
>
>
> It was Arun Raghavan who said at the right time 04.05.2009 21:30 the
>
> following words:
> > 2009/5/4 Sebastian Trüg <trueg at kde.org>:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> maybe you read my blog about Xesam and Nepomuk[1]. In essence I think we
> >> should create a new project which will handle the maintenance of the
> >> desktop ontologies. So far for me this means the Nepomuk ontologies NAO,
> >> NIE, and PIMO.
> >> IMHO it makes perfect sense to have a dedicated project for several
> >> reasons: * no copies floating around in different project packages
> >>  * one standard that we agree on (I know this is hard)
> >>  * one platform for discussion/bugs and general maintenance
> >>  * One central ontologies package very much like the mimetype package
> >
> > This sounds perfect.
> >
> >> I mentioned in my blog that we already created the OSCAF sourceforge
> >> project[2]. Now I don't really care how we name the project. Maybe OSCAF
> >> is not the best name, maybe something very simple like
> >> "desktop-ontologies" would
> >
> > I would say that we should reuse one of Xesam or Nepomuk for this. Why
> > add one more buzz-word to an already crowded namespace? :) Besides, it
> > makes it easier to associate the ontology with the project, then.
> >
> >> be better. In any case I think using sourceforce (I prefer it since I
> >> already have 3 projects there and was always happy with it) or something
> >> similar is a good idea. We then don't need to spend time on setting up
> >> task tracking systems or mailing lists. We just use what is there.
> >
> > _If_ we agree to keep this effort under the head of Nepomuk or Xesam,
> > I guess we can just reuse the existing infrastructure?
> >
> > Thanks for taking the initiative on this -- I think it'd be great if
> > we could all quickly converge on how we want to proceed from here, and
> > get the ball rolling.
> >
> > Cheers,