Hi Martyn and Tracker team and everyone on the list! Thanks for the input, I've started to work on a data definition language and ontologies. I'll discuss ontology issues with you again when I have clear definitions of things missing in existing task/project/calendar related ontologies.
regards, Anatoly On ג', 2013-06-04 at 17:08 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote: > On 02/06/13 12:17, אנטולי קרסנר wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Today I stumbled upon the following page: > > > > https://live.gnome.org/Tracker/Discussion/GnomeOntologies > > > > One of the problems I had with GTG was that I could integrate other TODO > > apps with it through Semantic Desktop, and now it looks like GTG is > > getting Tracker support through an ontology. > > > > I've been developing a task/project-management app. It's somewhat > > different from most todo apps I've seen for Gnome/GNU, but it uses very > > similar concepts. So I want to use the task ontology written for GTG. > > But I have many additions which this ontology doesn't have. > > > > For example, things like due date and start date may be bound to bigger > > time plans, "timelines", which allow for easier project-level control of > > time, and efficient time management. > > > > I expect to have many other new features, especially when users offer > > their usage patterns. These suggestions will naturally accumulate into > > generally useful features which I'd like to export into RDF data and > > send to Tracker. > > > > > > So I've been wondering: Currently those new ontologies seem to target > > specific apps. Is there a chance I propose updates and additions to the > > ontologies too? > > Yes, we'll happily accept ontology updates and improvements. > > > I mean, I don't work on any official Gnome module, but some generally > > useful and common task-related classes and concepts would allow much > > better integration, while simple apps can ignore what they don't use. > > Otherwise advanced features of time management wouldn't not just be > > ignored, but files would also get corrupted if one app edits data in a > > way which doesn't match the original app's data structure (e.g. open a > > time-managed project in a simple TODO app and change due dates manually, > > this could do permanent damage to the plans and the original app > > wouldn't be able to edit the project anymore). > > Well, so long as the ontology is flexible enough to cater for apps, > everyone is happy. Tasks can't be as complicated as SMS/MMS/email/IM and > all the messaging ontology we had to create some years ago for Nokia. So > I am confident we should be able to accommodate ;) > _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list tracker-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
