On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 10:34 -0400, Jamie McCracken wrote: > Is it entirely true that RDF/Sparql, whilst giving us the power to model > stuff better, is harder to use and makes things more difficult to devs > who dont know it > > I had always imagined there would be a client library that did not > expose RDF/SParql which would allow for more simple use and queries > (query by example or some simpler language). It would be much more > limiting than pure sparql but for the majority of apps where metadata > use is one dimensional it would suffice. > > However it would be wrong to scrap RDF/Sparql as you could not model > links between resources nor interact as well with non-file cloud based > data. Also by utilising nepomuk ontology, we are benefiting from the > large EU investment in it and the refinements from Nokia/KDE which > ensure the ontology is application driven and not purely theoretical in > nature > > The apple metadata spec is one dimensional and could not be extrapolated > easily to model more sophisticated ontologies. Tracker 0.6 metadata was > like apples and it proved insufficient for the needs of Nokia and > Nepomuk
You completely missed the point. I never said that Apple's metadata spec was good, I said their docs were. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
