Hi Sebastian, what I find a bit strange is that the Thing represents the concept, but if I change the type from Note to Task the (real world) concept actually changes.
However as this doesn't seem to have any sideffects I'll just keep it that way =) Thanks for the answer anyway. Cheers, Chris On Tuesday 22 February 2011 11:24:29 Sebastian Trüg wrote: > Hi Chris, > > I do not really follow. You want to change the type of a thing but keep > all the contents? This seems totally fine to me. > > Cheers > Sebastian > > On 02/14/2011 07:26 PM, Christian Mollekopf wrote: > > Another small issue concerning the pimo ontology. > > > > When I convert an item of the type Nepomuk::Vocabulary::PIMO::Task() to > > Nepomuk::Vocabulary::PIMO::Note() and I keep the same Nepomuk::Thing, I > > obviously have to set the new type on the Nepmuk::Thing, right? > > > > It seems a bit strange since the Nepomuk::Thing I supposed to "represent > > a uniqe concept/idea". I mean it does make sense somehow since the > > information stored in the Task/Note is exactly the same, but the > > semantics change a bit. > > > > Anway I have no clue If changing the Thing can have any sideffects. > > > > It's more that I'm interested, than that I'm facing technical problems > > =). So far at least ;-) > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
