> On Saturday 06 September 2008, Sebastian Trüg wrote: > >> On Saturday 06 September 2008 10:20:42 Sven Schwarz wrote: >> >>> I would say, your proposal really makes a good and concrete starting >>> point! >>> >> thanks. I feared you would not like us trimming down the ontology since >> here "real-life-I wan't that stuff working now" developers meet "I want >> this stuff to be Überclean" researchers. ;) >> Ooops, maybe, I outed myself as a non-conform or even strange researcher here ;-) Actually, as I also have a (strong!) hacker part in my soul, and I hated it to struggled with such pure-research driven stuff a lot myself. I also wanted to have running prototypes that show how things can work. But most of the time, I had to solve problems that are not interesting at all... One of the results is, that I will never ever include a (prototypical) RDF _repository_ into any software again if I am not forced to do so... ;-)
But actually, some of the concepts make sense and turned out to be really useful. For example, having an "ontology" (according to Ludger van Elst I should better call it "shared conceptualization") of the observed user operations (NOPs) really makes sense in the long run... Some day (say after the next world war) there will be a real good inference engine and whatnot that works just perfectly (and efficiently ;-)) on RDF data... These days will be really great... OK, until then, we just take the NOP ontology as a quite meaningful schema that is a shared conceptualization among people that want to make use of automatically observed user operations... That's not too bad, I think! :-) As I said two weeks ago (within a talk about my future life-planning): I like discussing about theoretical research and bleeding edge algorithms. But, I don't love them just for the sake of being so weird. If there isn't any use for the theory I will stop talking about it as soon as my pint of beer is empty ;-) So, let's take the interesting (parts of) research results and put something useful and running together with it. If that works, let's go a step further. In the same sense, I also absolutely agree on Aaron's words: Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > as one of those real-life-i-want-that-stuff-working-now developers, i'd just > like to point out that this is also just a starting point for my project > (plasma). > > there were bits of the ontology that we looked at and decided were > interesting > but beyond where we could realistically land with the first steps. so i > expect > the ontology to mature closer to the original one over time in the actual > implementations; how close will be something only time can tell at this point > i think =) Yesss... 'Nice weekend! Sven _______________________________________________ nepomuk-kde mailing list [email protected] http://lists.semanticdesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk-kde
