On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:26 +0800, James Henstridge wrote: ... > I think that the idea Ross is trying to get across here is that rather > than having a flat namespace of metadata types, you want to have > relationships between the metadata types (metadata about metadata). > > For example, we might have a have a relationship that says that "ross > performed song.ogg" is a specialised version of "ross created > song.ogg". Another simple relationship between metadata types might > be that "ross created song.ogg" implies "song.ogg was created by > ross". > > The idea is that these implicit relationships would be used in > queries, so if we have the relationship "ross performed song.ogg" in > the database, then song.ogg will be picked up by the query "files > created by ross". At the same time, the file would not get picked up > by a query for "files photographed by ross".
If I understand you correctly, this is exactly what RDFS (the "S" stands for "Schema") and OWL do: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ http://web4.w3.org/2004/OWL/ The standards are already there, you "only" have to add support for them to the metadata query engine, and you're done ;-) Cheers, M. S. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
