I am not exactly sure what you mean here. Keep in mind that both nie:DataObject and nie:DataSource are RDF classes and not C++ classes. This means they are used to describe resource in the Nepomuk DB, not to implement some C++ concept.
Cheers, Sebastian On 02/19/2011 12:45 PM, Christian Mollekopf wrote: > Hi, > > Instead of the NepomukfeederAgents, shouldn't we actually use an > AkonadiObject which is a subclass of NIE:DataObject together with a > NIE:DataSource for akonadi? > > I couldn't find much info on the topic, nor any code of such a DataSource / > DataObject, but with the Nepomukfeeder we seem to have ignored the DataObject > side of NIE completely. > Also this works only one way (Akonadi -> Nepomk) while the other approach > would work both ways if I understood correctly. > > I reckon with the akonadi DataObject/DataSource part implemented correctly, > one could ignore akonadi completely in nepomuk applications, since Nepomuk > would encapsulate it, while akonadi i.e. still can sync the items over the > internet in the background, right? > > I understand that it was probably easier to go the Nepomukfeeder way as a > first > implementation, but the proper thing to do would be IMHO the other way. > > Might be interesting thing to keep in mind for future implementations. > > But maybe I just misunderstood the the whole thing ;-) > Anyone some Ideas on this? > > See: http://www.semanticdesktop.org/ontologies/nie/ for reference > > Cheers, > > Chris > > > _______________________________________________ > Nepomuk mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk > _______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
