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? Regards, - Michael Pyne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg