Hey Christian,
> Hey swair, > > > Does having Pimo:Tasks as optional subsets of Pimo:project make sense? > This > > is is reference to a 'project management tool'. > > Treating Tasks in a similar way websites, persons, files and notes with > > respect to a Pimo:Project does not make sense. > > > Why doesn't that make sense? > The only difference I can see is that the pimo:partOf relation seems a > little > stronger than the pimo:isRelated relation. > I think it depends on each case which one is more correct, so either option > seems valid. > Yes both option seem valid. Still I think we should not use the same property for tasks and say, notes or persons. In my view while the Project Integrator (or MindMirror) is listing things related to a particular project, tasks should be treated differently than say, a note. Since task represents a part of the project itself. To be more clear, you can sometimes exhaustively divide a project into different tasks, and at the completion of all the tasks you are done with the project, or something like that. I know it does not hold true for every case. I was thinking of showing task in a different list view than other 'things' related to a project. May be showing tasks and projects both in the same tree view and listing tasks related to a project as the children of the project node. Since, that way if i have some things related to only one task of the project and not to other tasks, i can list them with clicking that task. > Currently I'm using pimo:isRelated in MindMirror to relate the tasks to > either > Topics or Projects ,but that could be changed. The only requirement is that > I > can relate a Task with multiple Projects/Topics at the same time, but that > seems to work for both properties too. > > So for consistency's sake I would just use the same property as used to > relate > files, notes, etc. > It is important that everyone uses a consistent property for tasks, (whichever property we decide in the end). So we should decide what to use. I'm inclined towards using pimo:partOf for tasks and pimo:isRelatedTo for other things. > > This is what i propose: To have a pimo:project has:part pimo:Tasks, > instead > > of isRelatedTo. Make a pimoProjectModel, which has projects as nodes and > > tasks as children. With Tasks having TMO:States but keeping the states > > limited to just 3 for better usability: states, Completed, Running, Not > > Completed (New). > > > > I'd suggest using 4: > tmo:TMO_Instance_TaskState_New : New Items, not yet specified > tmo:TMO_Instance_TaskState_Running : Something you're working on right now. > tmo:TMO_Instance_TaskState_Suspended : Something you want to keep for later > tmo:TMO_Instance_TaskState_Completed : Completed tasks/Aborted tasks > Ah yes i remember you telling me about these, this makes sense. > > > Of course a project can exist without having no task as a part of it. And > > task can exist without being a part of a project and These tasks won't be > > handled by project manager. > > > > When a task is chosen as a working context, if it is pimo:partOf a > project > > then that project is also a working context, meaning, 'things' which are > > related to the task also get associated with the project. I don't really > see > > a use case for the last one, but having task as a part of a project would > > certainly help. > > Cheers, > > Christian > > cheers, Swair.
_______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
